Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DEVON RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

MILFORD DOCKS BILL

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered,
That the Amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 31, line 2, leave out "line of high water at ordinary spring tides" and insert "level of mean high water springs".—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Glamorgan County Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents give notice to the Clerks in

the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than 4th August, 1972, and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and stand referred to the Examiners.
That any Petitions against the Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session and any Petitions against the Bill presented not later than the tenth day after the first reading of the Bill in the next Session shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in that Session.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

PETITIONS

Mrs. Lydia Mikhailovna Vins

Mrs. Knight: I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to present the humble Petition of undergraduates of the University of Birmingham, and friends of the same.
The Petition sheweth
That Lydia Mikhailovna Vins, a citizen of Kiev in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who is advanced in years and in poor health, is at present serving a prison sentence in the USSR because of her Christian faith …
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Members of the House of Commons will do all in their power to publicise the suffering endured by Christians in the USSR, particularly the present suffering in prison of Lydia Mikhailovna Vins; that they will make known to the Soviet authorities the fact that her imprisonment is believed to be unjust, unlawful and inhumane; and that they will make every possible effort to secure the release from prison of the said Lydia Mikhailovna Vins.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Farm Animals

Miss Quennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a Petition to this


honourable House signed by the Trustees of Compassion in World Farming and others showing their concern for the welfare of farm animals and regretting that
no time was allowed for the discussion of their protection during the European Communities Bill.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will make adequate provisions to safeguard the social and physical well-being of British-born livestock, and will not pass the European Communities Bill until this has been done.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Birmingham

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total percentage of unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area in April, May and June, 1972, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The figures for April, May and June were 4·9, 4·7 and 4·1 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Chapman: While appreciating that is obviously a trend in the right direction, without in any way being complacent about the high unemployment figures which still exist, may I ask whether my hon. Friend has seen the reports in this morning's newspapers that the demand for cars on the home market has rocketed by nearly 50 per cent.? Does he agree that since the motor industry is the precursor for the rest of industry in this country, provided that we can keep stable prices the outlook for productivity and employment prospects in the whole country should be very good?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. I happened to be in Birmingham on Friday and discovered there was a reasonable degree of optimism there. My hon. Friend is right that provided we can keep prices stable and have good industrial relations, the economy will improve.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentle man aware that if he found a reasonable degree of optimism in this marginal decrease of unemployment in the summer months, he must have been moving in remarkable circles in Birmingham? I it not a fact that the overriding consideration at the moment for Birmingham is that the unemployment record is going up at the same time as we have had record production of motor cars, and it is that fact which is causing grave concern to everybody in the city?

Mr. Smith: No, Sir. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. The position in Birmingham has improved over the last year and I can see no reason why it should not go on improving because, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, Birmingham is particularly well placed to spring forward as the economic situation improves.

Catering Industry

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many notified unfilled vacancies there were in the catering industry in Scotland at the latest available date.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 5th July the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled in the hotel and catering industry in Scotland was 1,141. The figure relates only to notified vacancies remaining unfilled and does not purport to measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

Mr. Taylor: Is there not something grotesque about the situation when, with more than 100,000 unemployed, there are so many vacancies in the catering trade? As part of the reason why people do not go in for these jobs may be the industry's historic record of poor wages and bad working conditions, and as things have improved significantly in recent years, will my hon. Friend encourage the industry to publicise the situation in it, with particular reference to current wages and working conditions?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Conditions have improved considerably in recent years, but we have to face the fact that these jobs are often still not attractive. We are doing everything we can to encourage more unemployed


people to go into the hotel and catering industry. The employment exchange at Glasgow has specialist facilities to deal entirely with skilled hotel and catering occupations, and I am glad to say that we are making arrangements for improving the notification of vacancies and also that we are linking the specialist section in Glasgow with liaison officers in selected areas in Scotland. This should result in a considerable improvement.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Under-Secretary ascertain to what extent it is a disincentive to people wanting to go into this industry that hotels are deliberately disobeying the law on fire precautions? As we are all supposed to be upholders of the rule of law, may I ask what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the hotel industry obeys the law and therefore gets the labour it deserves?

Mr. Smith: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that I am not responsible for enforcement of the fire regulations, but I should not have thought that was a disincentive to people wanting to go into the industry. The question of fire precautions in hotels was raised during the Report stage of the Finance Bill, when my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave certain assurances about help to small hotel keepers. Obviously this is something we must keep in mind, but if people are to be discouraged from going into the hotel industry it will he for reasons other than the lack of fire precautions.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many notified unfilled vacancies there were in the catering industry in the South-Western region at the latest available date.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 5th July, the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled in the hotel and catering industry in the South-West region was 2,102. The figure relates only to notified vacancies remaining unfilled and does not purport to measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

Mr. Adley: Has my hon. Friend noticed that a number of my hon. Friends from various parts of the country have tabled Questions today and have expressed concern about unfilled vacancies

in the tourist industry? Is he further aware that yesterday the Northumbria Tourist Board, at a meeting in the House with officers of the Parliamentary Tourism Committee, expressed the opinion that more education is needed on this point, directed particularly to school leavers? Will he seek an opportunity to have meetings with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to discuss the need for education and job retraining in the tourist industry?

Mr. Smith: We always try to be helpful and I shall certainly endeavour to consult my right hon. Friend on the point my hon. Friend raises. We are doing what we can to make known to a wider audience the career opportunities in the hotel and catering industry. We are doing that via employment exchanges and youth career officers. The situation is improving and will continue to improve. The efforts such as those of my hon. Friend help considerably, and I am glad that there is this concern over the tourist industry because it is of such importance to the country.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for these unfilled vacancies is that barmaids are paid as little as 25p per hour in my area and have not had a pay increase for four or five years? Will he do something to persuade the brewers, who are continually pushing up the price of beer, to pass on some of their profits to this branch of the industry and to see whether people in the industry can have a decent minimum wage?

Mr. Smith: The question of the wages of barmaids is not for me. But there are areas in this industry which are still relatively low paid. On the other hand, there are other parts of it which are much better paid than they used to be, with better conditions of work. I believe it is our duty to make known to as wide a section of people as possible the job opportunities occurring in the tourist industry, because this can provide, in areas of relatively high unemployment, some very good long-term employment prospects.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many


notified unfilled vacancies there were in the hotel and catering industry in Wales at the latest available date.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 5th July the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled in the hotel and catering industry in Wales was 904. The figure relates only to notified vacancies remaining unfilled and does not purport to measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these unfilled vacancies will be filled in due course by people from outside Wales, although we still have a very high unemployment figure? What steps is he taking to advertise the attractions of the tourist industry to Welsh people—young Welsh people in particular? This industry earned us over £130 million last year.

Mr. Smith: As I said earlier, we are endeavouring to make known to as wide an audience as possible the job opportunities in the tourist industry. We are doing a great deal about training. Next year we are doubling to over 1,000 the number of people being trained in colleges of further education and employers' establishments. In addition, in the past year 200 people were trained under the apprentice award scheme operated jointly by the Department of Employment and the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board. The accent now is very much on training in the tourist industry and I hope that it will go on improving.

Mr. Palmer: Surely the Under-Secretary is not suggesting that skilled but unemployed engineering fitters in Bristol should become catering workers.

Mr. Smith: I am not suggesting that. I heard someone say the other day that unemployed and half-deaf riveters make very bad waiters. This is true. No one would suggest that people should be transferred from one area to another where they perhaps would be very unsuited. In addition, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise sincerely that there are good job opportunities in the hotel and catering industry, particularly for young people, if they receive the right encouragement and the right training. This is what we are seeking to achieve.

Industrial Noise

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with representatives of industry and the trade unions about the implementation of the code of practice on industrial noise; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: All questions associated with the code are discussed in the Noise Sub-Committee of the Indus trial Health Advisory Committee, which prepared the code and on which the TUC and the CBI are fully represented.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend must be aware that the Robens Report on Industrial Safety refers to the need, as Lord Robens and his Committee saw it, for legislation to control industrial noise. As more than 500,000 people work in environments with decibel levels of 90 or more, which is considered to be a hearing hazard area, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the code, with its permissive content, is the right way of approaching this problem?

Mr. Smith: I am aware of what the Robens Committee said, and my hon. Friend knows that we welcome the report and are studying its implications. When I introduced the code of noise on behalf of my right hon. Friend I stressed that we did not rule out the use of legislation if the code did not prove efficacious. We have to see how it goes before we make a final decision. At the moment I am pleased that the code is getting a wide circulation and seems to have had a fairly good response.

Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the General and Municipal Workers' Union recently fought a case on behalf of one of its members who was deafened at work and that this resulted in an award to the individual of £1,250? Will the hon. Gentleman circulate this important information to all employers as an incentive to them to take action?

Mr. Smith: I do not think I can undertake to do what the hon. Gentleman requests. Compensation for industrial injuries is paid under the Industrial Injuries Acts for prescribed industrial diseases and the prescription of occupational hearing loss as an industrial disease


is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Any individual may sue for damages if he feels that he has been wronged or harmed as a result of his employment.

School Leavers

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Scottish school leavers who left school in 1970 are still unemployed; and what are the figures for 1971 and to the nearest available date in 1972.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): Eight thousand one hundred and seventy-five school leavers were registered as unemployed in Scotland in July, 1972. I regret that the statistics do not distinguish these separately by year of leaving.

Mr. Ewing: That reply hardly relates to the Question. I asked how many school leavers registered as unemployed in 1970 had never had a job and still do not have one. It is becoming an irritating habit of the hon. Gentleman's Department to give replies which do not relate to the Questions. The number of school leavers who have never had a job since leaving school in June is a national disgrace in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to comment. He may only ask a question.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Youth employment officers would have this information but they are scattered throughout the country and there are large numbers of them to ask. The nearest we can get to measuring continuing unemployment among school leavers—which is serious—is that this year the increase was considerably less than in the corresponding period last year, which is an improvement.

Mr. James Hamilton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a dastardly situation? Because of the lack of job opportunities in Scotland, many of those who left school last summer have not found their first job, and most of them, when they do find employment, will find themselves in dead end jobs. When are the Government going to do something about the unemployment situation?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I take the problem as seriously as any I can think of in the Department's work. As well as the general economic measures which have been announced by the Government, the Department has agreed to meet half the cost of further apprenticeship award schemes run by the engineering and construction industry training boards in 1972–73 and has asked other boards to consider similar schemes. The Department is also prepared to provide limited skilled training courses for young people where necessary.

Mr. Edward Taylor: One of our major problems in Scotland is the difficulty of young people finding office employment in the cities. As part of the reason for this is the fact that nationalised industries are closing down offices in Scotland and centralising their activities in the South, may I ask my hon. Friend to have a word with the nationalised industries and the Government Departments concerned to ensure that jobs are fairly spread throughout Britain?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friend makes a point which I should very much like to see quantified.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the complacent and disgraceful answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the services provided by his Department to help find work for the school leavers in the greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: In July there were 350 school leavers registered as unemployed in the greater London area. Responsibility for the provision of the Youth Employment Service in this area rests with the local education authorities and I am satisfied that the careers officers of these authorities are doing all they can to help school leavers find jobs.

Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that reply. Is he aware that unemployment amongst school leavers in London is twice as high as normal and is not improving? What Government action is in mind?

Mr. Smith: I do not think this is as serious as the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are over three vacancies for every unemployed young person in London. The position is markedly better in London than it is in Britain as a whole. I believe that the situation will go on improving and that the vast majority of school leavers this year will have obtained jobs within the next two or three months.

Redundancies

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of redundancies in all industries notified to the Department of Employment in June, 1972.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Redundancies notified to my Department in June, 1972, in all industries involved 15,150 work-people.

Mr. Redmond: Can my right hon. Friend say how those figures compare with June, 1970, June, 1971, and January of this year? Would I be right in thinking that the redundancies notified in about January and February of this year have been included in the unemployment figures for June? Were they not exceptionally heavy in January, thereby causing that hiccup in the unemployment figure? May I take it that if there has been a reduction in redundancies notified, that is a much better indicator than the unemployment figures which are rather unsatisfactory?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not quite certain whether my hon. Friend's reasoning is accurate, but I can answer him on a matter of fact. Redundancies now are about 90 per cent. of what they were in June, 1970, and about 36 per cent. of what they were in June, 1971. There have been considerable reductions in the number of redundancies, and naturally my Department is doing all that it can to resettle these people.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Manchester area the doom-laden laying-off of 1,000 workers at the Churchill machine tool industry establishment has now begun? As at present in Manchester 500 machine tool fitters are chasing 10 vacancies in that trade, what will the right hon.

Gentleman do about this situation? The Government have done none of the things they could have done to save Churchill's from closing and to prevent the loss of 1,000 jobs.

Mr. Macmillan: The Government have done a very great deal to expand the economy and to give special help to the development areas, special development areas and intermediate areas. Certainly the present Government have done more in their reflationary tendencies to get the economy going than any other Administration.

Tourism

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to improve the statistics available to him about employment in the tourist industry.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What my hon. Friend asks would present considerable difficulties. Employment statistics are analysed according to the Standard Industrial Classification and the tourist industry cannot be separately identified except in these terms.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who know the tourist industry feel that the lack of statistics about it is holding back the recognition which is due to it as one of our most important industries? Even if there is difficulty about classifying it separately, would it not be possible to assemble information from other classifications to give an indication of the importance of employment in this industry? Would my hon. Friend consider, if appropriate, meeting myself and some of my hon. Friends to see whether this could be done?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I recognise my hon. Friend's continued interest in this great industry over a very long time. There are very great difficulties about what he has suggested. Many different occupations contribute to the tourist trade: hotel workers, catering workers, shopkeepers, transport workers, entertainers and so on. In addition, the work is seasonal and a good many of the people concerned are self-employed. I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who would like to discuss this matter with me.

Docks (Container Dispute)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been taken by his conciliation officers over the container dispute in the docks.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I and my officials are in close touch with the chairmen of the Joint Special Committee on the Ports Industry.

Mr. McCrindle: In the event of the Jones-Aldington discussions failing to lead to a settlement, will my right hon. Friend consider passing the matter to his conciliation officers to obtain a settlement? In general, will he consider doing this in future disputes, perhaps at a rather earlier stage? Would he agree that by employing this method we might avoid a public confrontation and defuse an overheated industrial relations situation?

Mr. Macmillan: Naturally I am always ready to have my conciliation officers used in every form of industrial dispute. I am glad to find that the right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side appear to share this view. In this particular situation, however, there could have been no better organisation than the joint committee set up under the chairmanship of Lord Aldington and Mr. Jack Jones, which has produced recommendations which have received very wide support on all sides of the House. In this situation it would be wisest to let them get on with the work, which they are now continuing.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition have always argued that conciliation was the answer to our industrial relations problems? Therefore, in cheering his hon. Friend, we would hope that in future the advice of his hon. Friend will be accepted and acted upon by the Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in voting for a national strike the dockers' committee did not reject the Jones/Aldington Report? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, they did."] No, they did not. What the dockers did was to accept most of the report, but they felt that it had to be strengthened. It is that aspect which is of the utmost importance in getting a settlement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."] Why should not the dockers take

that point of view? They are the people who work in the docks.

Mr. Macmillan: I am glad to say that both Lord Aldington and Mr. Jones have made it quite clear that they stand by the report in all its details. They have also accepted that further work needs to be done on certain aspects of the report.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. Green: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to be present at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I expect to attend the normal monthly meeting of the council tomorrow morning.

Mr. Green: In the light of the continuing rapid change in methods of production, distribution and exchange, to what extent are all parties to the NEDC giving priority to retraining and the application of retraining efforts?

Mr. Macmillan: Questions of training and retraining are not a direct concern of the National Economic Development Council but they come into discussion. Certainly the implications of the need for retraining are very much behind some of the studies undertaken by the National Economic Development Office.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the NEDC will regard the early answers this afternoon on unemployment as reflecting an extraordinary complacency on the part of the Government, particularly in the light of the seriously disquieting figures that we had in the latest unemployment returns? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what additional measures the Government are taking to avoid a repetition next winter of last winter's disastrous unemployment figures?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not in the least complacent about the present unemployment figures. But as I said when the trend of unemployment was downwards, one should not make too much of one month's figures. That is particularly so when about 26,000 out of a 28,000 increase in unemployment in the last figures were students registering as unemployed during the vacation. But I am not complacent about the figures and


we have every intention of keeping a very close eye on them with a view to preventing any increase in unemployment.

London

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take to stabilise employment opportunities in the inner London area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I would expect the extensive reflationary measures taken by the Government to increase employment opportunities generally. The London area, which has an unemployment rate of less than half the national rate, is particularly well placed to benefit from these measures.

Mr. Cox: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that that kind of reply will be regarded by many thousands of workers in inner London as utter complacency? We have continued to lose thousands of jobs in recent years. In Wandsworth we have lost nearly 5,000 jobs in the last five years. Few, if any, have been replaced by jobs in other industries. What is being done to stabilise and encourage job opportunities in inner London? For example, are industrial development certificates applicable to London? If not, why not? This is a very serious problem.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is no complacency on our part as regards London or any other part of the country. Overall the situation in London is much better than in the rest of the country, although I admit that manufacturing employment in London is declining. However, opportunities in the service industries are increasing. Some workers are moving out of London. Industrial development certificates are not now required in the South East up to 10,000 sq. ft. Therefore, this should also be an encouragement. If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will find that the situation in London will go on improving, as it has been improving.

Lanarkshire

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of male adult unemployment in Lanarkshire.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 10th July the rate of male unemployment for Lanarkshire was 10·1 per cent. Rates are not calculated separately for adults.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the percentage which he has presented to us is double what it was in 1970 and that the global figure in Lanarkshire is 15,209? He can confirm from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that in my constituency there are 11 factories empty or about to be empty. On that basis we have not taken into consideration redundancies which are known but which have not yet been notified to his office. Can he tell us once and for all what the people of Lanarkshire in particular and Scotland in general can expect from this Government as to the unemployment situation?

Mr. Smith: Unemployment in Lanarkshire is much too high; that is fully accepted. It remains a cardinal objective of the Government to reduce unemployment there as elsewhere. We have taken measures on an unprecedented scale to cope with unemployment in the country as a whole. Lanarkshire's best hope for the future lies in an expanding national economy. That is the one way we shall reduce unemployment not only in England but also in Scotland.

Apprentices

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consult employers with a view to introducing a scheme whereby apprentices nearing completion of their apprenticeships will be permitted to do so without being paid off; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No, Sir. This would be a matter for the joint voluntary bodies in industry. However, if apprentices are paid off, special efforts are made by my Department and the Youth Employment Service, in conjunction with the training boards and other organisations, to enable them to continue their training.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that the paying off of fourth-year apprentices in industry is economically wasteful to the nation, morally destructive of the individuals, and a national scandal? Is he for example considering what steps he


might take to overcome this tragic problem? What proposals do the Government have in mind to eliminate this human difficulty?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In terms of numbers this problem is not, fortunately, very widespread. Of about 300 over the country in the last three months, 93 were in Scotland. This is a somewhat high proportion. Where it is not possible to find employment for an apprentice to continue his training, the Department is prepared in suitable cases to arrange for a period of continued training at Government expense with an employer or industry centre, a college of further education or a GTC. There have been occasions when such arrangements have proved very effective.

Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to the answer to a letter which I forwarded to him concerning the apprentices of the Ford Motor Company in Southampton who are being released halfway through their apprenticeship?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will most certainly pay attention to what my hon. Friend says. If the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has a particular case in mind—though I think not in his own constituency—perhaps he will let me know.

Industrial Tribunals (Workers' Rights)

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints of alleged unfair dismissal for refusal to join a trade union have been made to the industrial tribunals since the relevant sections of the Industrial Relations Act came into force.

Mr. Fidler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints of infringement of rights to trade union membership and activity have been made to the industrial tribunals or to the conciliation officers of his Department since 28th February; and what results have been achieved in these cases to the latest convenient date.

Mr. David: Mitchell asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints of unfair dismissal have

been made to the industrial tribunals or to his Department's conciliation officers since 28th February; and how many settlements have so far been reached.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Between 28th February and 30th June, 2,581 complaints of unfair dismissal were made direct to conciliation officers of my Department or referred to them by industrial tribunals; of these, 971 were settled or withdrawn as a result of conciliation action. The corresponding figures for complaints about infringement of rights in regard to trade union membership and activity were 186 and 37. I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving detailed figures.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Do not those figures show the individual confidence of the workers in the Act and in the tribunals?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. and gallant Friend is right and the figures bear him out. Between 28th February and 30th June the tribunals heard a total of 2,154 cases. The monthly average showed an increase of 100 per cent. compared with the previous months and clearly the Industrial Relations Act accounted for a considerable part of this increase.

Mr. Whitehead: In what proportion of these cases was compensation awarded by the tribunal?

Mr. Macmillan: The actual results of cases which have been to tribunals are not yet available from the tribunals.

Mr. Fidler: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the safeguards in the Industrial Relations Act for trade union rights and membership are becoming increasingly appreciated by members of the trade unions and, more important, will he agree that this illustrates the transparent dishonesty of those, inside the House and out, who claim that the Industrial Relations Act is designed to do other than benefit the trade unions and their membership?

Mr. Macmillan: One of the problems is that we shall not be able to provide detailed figures of the results of references to tribunals until the end of the year since these records have become computerised. [Interruption.] I regret that


technological advance has produced this result.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister give serious consideration to finding a new Parliamentary Private Secretary who will probably persuade his hon. Friends not to put down these helpful Questions until the Minister has the answers?

Mr. Macmillan: The Question and Answer showed quite clearly that since over 900 cases were settled or withdrawn as a result of conciliation over unfair dismissal and since about the same proportion applied to actions for infringements of trade union rights, this part of the Act is working very effectively.

Mr. Mitchell: In view of the remarkable figures which my right hon. Friend has given—[Interruption.]—of the use which is being made of the Act by individual trade unionists—[HON. MEMBERS: "Repeat the figures."]—over 2,500 in so short a time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—will he say whether he has had representations from trade unions or their members that employers should not obey the law?

Mr. Macmillan: No. As the information I have shows that in a majority of the cases of unfair dismissal with which the tribunals have dealt the employee concerned has had judgment in his favour, it is quite clear that the employee and the court and, I am sure, the whole House, think that employers as well as employees should obey the law.

Mr. Prentice: We have unreserved admiration for the gallantry of the Minister's hon. Friends who clutch at these little straws of comfort in a week when the Industrial Relations Act has caused a quite unnecessary dock strike and brought us to the verge of a general strike.

Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's diagnosis of the causes of the dock strike. His right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was much more accurate. He was supported by some of the most militant dockers when they appeared on "Panorama". They did not support the diagnosis of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice).

Mr. John Page: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he asks his PPS

to analyse the figures, because I am sure he would obtain quicker and better results than from the computer?

Mr. Macmillan: I shall bear the suggestion in mind.

Following are the figures:


COMPLAINTS OF UNFAIR DISMISSAL AND INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS IN REGARD TO TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1971—PERIOD 28TH FEBRUARY, 1972 TO 30TH JUNE, 1972



Unfair dismissal (Section 22)
Infringement of rights in regard to trade union membership and activity (Section 5)


Cases in which conciliation was not attempted or was unsuccessful
897
119


Cases




(a) Settled
359
8


(b) Withdrawn
612M
29


as a result of conciliation action.




Still being dealt with
713
30


Totals
2,581
186

Construction Industry

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the large number of vacancies remaining unfilled in the construction industry in different parts of the country is due to the lack of requisite skills among men registered as unemployed; and whether he is satisfied that there is adequate provision and publicity for re-training for this industry.

Mr. Trew: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the Employment Transfer Scheme, with particular reference to the construction industry.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: There is some "mismatch"—both geographically and of skills—between available registrants and unfilled vacancies. To minimise geographical mismatch, my right hon. Friend has decided to extend the Employment Transfer Scheme to assist the household removal expenses of unemployed construction workers who move home to take a job in areas where there are good prospects of continuing employment—not necessarily with one employer. To meet the mismatch of skills and the


general shortage of certain craftsmen, my Department is rapidly expanding and publicising training facilities available for these trades. The main responsibility for training must lie with the industry however.

Mr. Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask how he explains that 133,000 construction workers are registered as unemployed? Will he say what steps he is taking to confirm that none of these people are actually working?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: One of the problems of the industry is in securing notification of all vacancies. Experiments have been tried in various places, and in one area it was shown that only about one-third of the vacancies were registered with us and in another area only about one-half. There is within the category of the construction industry a large number of other categories of a less broad nature which are registered, and that is the real problem.

Mr. Trew: I appreciate the great value of retraining particularly in conjunction with the announcement made this afternoon. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done to halt the serious decline of recruitment of apprentices into the industry?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In answer to an earlier question I mentioned a scheme agreed between the Construction Industry Training Board and the Department in which the Government are meeting half the cost.

Mr. Heffer: The extension of the scheme to assist with removal and other matters is to be welcomed. Will the Minister ensure that there is the greatest possible publicity of the scheme in areas such as Merseyside and the North West where there is heavy unemployment among construction workers? Will he accept at the same time that this should not be used as an alternative for providing work for construction workers in these localities?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I thought there would be a sting in the tail, but I am grateful for the hon. Member's first comment. Every possible form of publicity will be given to the scheme. I am sure that the hon. Member will help in this.

TUC AND CBI (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on his talks with the Trade Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his tripartite talks with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress at Downing Street on Tuesday, 18th July.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with members of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trade Union Congress in Downing Street on 18th July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As to our meeting on the 18th July, I would refer hon. Members to the answer I gave on the 20th July to a Question from the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). A further meeting is taking place later this afternoon.—[Vol. 841, c. 163.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask him to assure the House that at the meeting high priority will be given to considering means of improving the position of lower-paid workers? Will not the rent rebate scheme be a contribution towards that end without stirring up the hornets' nest of differentials?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The question of the lower paid was one on which there was considerable discussion at the last meeting and it was then agreed that we should further study and pursue it in greater detail at the meeting later this afternoon. The point my hon. Friend has mentioned is one of those which is taken into account.

Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Prime Minister suppose that the major employers dislike his Industrial Relations Act so much?

The Prime Minister: As they do not dislike it, the question does not need an answer.

REGIONAL POLICIES WITHIN EUROPE

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he is having with the Chancellor of the German Federal Republic about British regional policies.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Watkins: What a typically disappointing answer. Will the Prime Minister seek to make it clear in the Federal Republic that this elected British Parliament intends to remain the ultimate arbiter of British regional policies after 1st January?

The Prime Minister: There will be Community regional policies, and we shall have our full share in formulating them.

Mr. David Steel: In looking forward to that event, will the Prime Minister urge the Scottish Office to have talks with the appropriate Ministries in Eire, Norway and Southern Italy with a view to harmonising as soon as possible policies appropriate to the so-called peripheral areas of Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that that would be appropriate at present, because the question of the areas is one for discussion amongst all Community members. That discussion is carried on in Brussels, but there is nothing to prevent us having bilateral discussions with any other country. I have discussed the question with all the Heads of Government I have met in recent months, and it will be discussed at the summit.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to have an official meeting with Herr Willy Brandt.

The Prime Minister: I look forward to meeting Herr Brandt in Kiel during the Olympics.

Mr. Ashton: The House will be very glad to hear that. In answer to Question No. Q2, the Prime Minister said that he was satisfied with the regional policies of the Common Market. Can he give us an assurance that when we enter the Market we shall be able to insist on our policy of industrial development certificates and

be able to continue with it, despite the fact that the Market might not agree with such a policy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I did not say that I was satisfied with the Community policy. I said that the Community policy remains to be worked out and the areas settled. In this we have our full part, and the matter will be discussed at the summit.

Mr. Marten: As regional policy is so important, can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that our instrument of ratification will not be deposited in Brussels until we have satisfaction on this most important point at the summit conference?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Our instrument of ratification will be deposited immediately after Royal Assent, and this will give us our full rights in the Community to ensure a satisfactory regional policy.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Bonn.

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an official visit to the German Federal Republic.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Molloy: Ought not the Prime Minister to have plans to do so, if only to tell the Government of the German Federal Republic that the majority of this House and of the British people generally very much resent that Government or any other European Government making representations to the EEC Commission on the regional policies of Great Britain especially before we are in the Common Market? Ought he not to tell them that while he might be prepared to go in on his knee-pads, the British people will not under any conditions accept that sort of crawling to Europe? Would he not agree that if they try to put it over on us before we are in, that sort of behaviour might stiffen our backs to see that we get very much better terms before we enter?

The Prime Minister: The German Government have made no protest or objection to any British policy. What


was done was what any member of the Community was entitled to do, including ourselves, and that is to ask for information about the policies of other members.

Mr. Adley: When my right hon. Friend sees the German Chancellor will he tell him that he can safely ignore the rather silly proposals put forward by the Opposition for renegotiating the Treaty of Rome because, after the anarchistic face that the Labour Party has shown to the electorate in the last few days, it will be many years before it is ever re-elected to govern this country?

The Prime Minister: No one takes any notice of what it says.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman meets Herr Brandt will he congratulate him on the fact that the Socialist Party of Germany which he led at the Vienna Conference of Socialist International voted for a resolution calling on the Six to meet the requirements stated by the British Labour Party on the renegotiation of the terms of entry to the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: Is so happens that the Socialist International does not govern the Community or Europe.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the appropriate period after which he will discuss with the Trades Union Congress how it believes the Industrial Relations Act is damaging its interests.

The Prime Minister: I have already had a number of discussions with TUC representatives on the operation of the Act. I indicated that the Government would be prepared to review and consider amendments to it after it had been given a fair trial.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the decision to give the Industrial Relations Act a fair trial before amending it is basically a face-saving formula since the Act has been tried and has failed? Does he agree that while the nation is poised on a delicate industrial tightrope, this is not the time for saving anybody's face, including the Government's, and that if he were to amend

the Act now he would help both the nation and himself?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept that. I have already said that if there are specific points on which people consider the Act should be amended, they should put them forward and let those matters be discussed. That is a perfectly reasonable offer. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the large amount of support for the Act in the country.

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the Act can be amended if it has not been allowed to be given a fair chance to prove itself because of the provocative opposition of Labour hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: I think that in general public opinion believes that a reasonable time should be given to see the operation of the Act and is prepared to consider ways in which it could be amended. Those who criticise should also take the responsibility for putting forward alternative proposals.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When the Prime Minister meets the TUC this afternoon and discusses these matters, will he take the opportunity to clear up a little of the confusion about his broadcast in "News at Ten" last week? Does he recall all the sob stuff—he did it in the House as well—about that pathetic little firm being driven into bankruptcy? Did he then know that it was a subsidiary of the multi-million Vestey Corporation? Did he know that the Vestey Corporation had made large capital gains by closing down some of its dock areas and developing them for property? Did he know that it had caused the loss of some dockers' jobs? When the Prime Minister made that statement, did he know the facts and conceal them or did he not even know?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that despite his own screaming and shouting I was quoting—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will never shout me down—I was quoting the words of the judge in the Court that the firm was being pushed into bankruptcy with losses of £2,000 a week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know that one of the points which the TUC has made to me is that it objects


to small firms in this position bringing actions.

Mr. Wilson: We all object. We asked the right hon. Gentleman last week to suggest amendments which would prevent wildcat employers bringing actions of this kind. But will the right hon. Gentleman, who in the House, if not in his broadcast, stood on his own two feet by making a statement about the firm and did not place it in the lips of a learned judge, who seems to have been wrong. recall that he said that? Will he now answer the question? When he said this in a broadcast and in the House did he know that this little pathetic firm was a member of the Vestey Corporation, or did he not?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that it was a Vestey subsidiary at two removes through a holding company. But the right hon. Gentleman must accept that this makes no difference to the principle, that it was an attempt by members of one union to put 57 workers belonging to USDAW out of work, or to push the firm out of business. Let him answer for that, too.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much that firm made by the closure of docks and how many dockers were thrown out of employment by its actions?

The Prime Minister: Let the right hon. Gentleman ask the firm. Let him answer the question of principle: does he believe it right that men who are defying their union, defying their negotiating procedure and defying the law should be allowed to put other trade unionists out of their job and a firm out of business?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a debate on the industrial situation later today.

CAREERS AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science in relation to the reorganisation of careers advisory and youth employment services: and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Prime Minister aware of the many valuable services offered by careers advisory people employed by education authorities throughout the country? If he is really satisfied with co-ordination, how can the Department of Employment be putting out pamphlets saying that it is to do the service while careers advisory officers are being told that consultations are still going on?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend has proposed is that advice for the first job should be given through the local authorities and that thereafter young people should have a choice. This seems to him to be the right solution, but obviously in discussions with local authorities and the education authorities, as well as those concerned in the employment service, he can take other views into account.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of all these valuable services the best possible advice on careers in industry and commerce can normally be given by practising businessmen? Will the Government encourage this?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is encouraged by bringing them in in an advisory capacity with the services which are themselves advising young people.

SELSDON

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Selsdon.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that when he went to Selsdon on that last celebrated occasion he and his pals were devising the General Election strategy? Does he not realise that the country is ready for him to take another trip there? Will he take with him Lord Vestey and ask him to explain how he can sack dockers down the street, reemploy USDAW people up the street and supposedly make a loss if he employed those same dockers at the same rate?

The Prime Minister: What requires to be explained is why dockers should be allowed to put USDAW workers out of their jobs.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (REORGANISATION)

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his proposals for the reorganisation of the National Health Service.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): A White Paper on the reorganisation of the National Health Service in England has been published this afternoon, and copies are available in the Vote Office. It foreshadows legislation to unify the administration of the National Health Service. New authorities with comprehensive health functions will be set up at regional and area level. In both forward planning and day-to-day administration they will work closely with the local authorities responsible for the personal social services and other services that are related to health. The changes will come into effect at the same time as the reorganisation of local government.
The entire purpose is to improve the service to all the members of the public who need health care, whether at home or in hospital, and whether they are acutely ill, or frail and elderly, or menttally ill, or mentally handicapped, or physically disabled.
To achieve this purpose the new structure will create for the first time a single health authority in each area, the area health authority, which will be responsible for both the community health services, including those provided by the family practitioners, and the hospitals.
Each area health authority will be required, with the help of professional advisory committees and working to national standards and priorities, to inform itself of all the health needs of its area; to plan for and provide the services to meet them in conjunction with its matching local authority; and continuously to monitor, adjust and improve services in order to raise standards and meet needs better.
To help it meet the needs of the public a number of new features will be intro-

duced. Thus health plans will be based on the needs of particular groups such as mothers and children, the elderly and the physically and mentally handicapped and ill. There will be teams focussing all the relevant skills and services for each such group of the public. There will also be strong community health councils, mainly composed of councillors and representatives of voluntary bodies to ensure that the area health authorities respond to the needs of the public.
The aim is, while protecting the clinical freedom of doctors and dentists and the needs of teaching and research, to ensure that the disparities such as have led in the past to the relative neglect of some types of illness or disability and to the imbalance between domiciliary and hospital care shall not continue in the future; and that drive and rising resources are rationally spread across all the country's health needs.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and regretting that he did not do the House the courtesy of volunteering this information, may I ask whether he is aware that a preliminary and inevitably hasty reading of the document reveals some disturbing and disappointing features?
In particular there is the right hon. Gentleman's insistence on introducing a two-tier structure of organisation which puts the regional health authorities, totally appointed by him, between him and the area health authorities generally. Does he appreciate that we believe that the area health authorities, being the closer to the community, should be the principal units of administration and not controlled and supervised by the regional health authorities in this way?
Secondly, is he aware that we regret his totally inadequate injection of democracy into the operation of the Health Service and in particular the fact that the regional bodies are to be appointed by him and the area health authorities predominantly appointed by the regional health authorities? Does he realise that in our view a majority of seats on those authorities ought to be reserved for the elected representatives of the people through their local authorities and for the elected representatives of those who work in the Health Service?
Thirdly, is he aware that we regret the failure in the document to take any new steps towards the introduction of an occupational health service, the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman towards the private sector in the National Health Service and the lack of proposals for dealing with the scandal of queue jumping by those who can afford to pay for beds? Finally, is he aware of the unsatisfactory nature of his proposals for a Health Service Commissioner? Is he aware that we have been pressing for a debate on his Health Service Commissioner proposals ever since he made his initial statement in February?
Will he now tell the House what opportunity he intends to give to us to examine all these proposals in detail before he drafts his legislation? Will he give the House an assurance that we will be able to have a full debate before any legislative proposals are finalised?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree with the right hon. Lady that the area health authority is the principal unit of the new structure and should be so. But the Government must have a link to speed decision and decide on the distribution of the taxpayers' money, and that must either be a regional health authority, on which the Government have decided, or regional branches of the Department. As for the membership of the area health authority, it will inevitably have the task of deciding how to spend the taxpayers' money as between many competing needs.
We judge that it is right therefore that area health authority members should not be primarily representative in any way but should be chosen for their capacity to judge, on the advice of their professional advisers, between the competing health needs of the services. On the other hand, it is important to provide a voice for the local public, and that more than ever before is provided by the community health councils of which I have spoken. The occupational health service is very important, but we cannot do everything at once and such services are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The House will know that I am due to make statements or to give answers to questions on both the private sector and waiting lists later this year. As for a debate, this is for the usual channels.

Mr. Awdry: Does my right hon. Friend know that there is great local anxiety about the future of the Bath clinical area and does he agree that there will have to be some special financial arrangements to preserve the integrity of that area? Will he be making such an announcement fairly soon?

Sir K. Joseph: I know that there has been such worry. I had hoped that it had been quelled to some extent by the ample consultations that have occurred. The area boundaries will not be barriers to patients as between them and their doctors in any way whatever.

Mr. Pardoe: While welcoming the creation of the unitary health authorities, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that his statement and the document have two grave omissions? First what rôle and influence will the GPs play in these new area health authorities? The second point is to do with the absence of democracy. Why is this not being done as part and parcel of the reform of local government instead of as an extension of "ad hocracy" and ad hoc boards? When he says that it is necessary for the Government to have power to choose people to judge, will he say when in his experience did democracy cease to be the best way of choosing people to exercise their judgment?

Sir K. Joseph: General practitioners will retain completely their clinical freedom and contractual relationship with the Department. They will play their part, through professional advisory committees, in the policy-making of the area health authorities.
As for the question of democracy, the area health authorities spend vast sums of public money. They do not carry out precisely the same jobs as local authorities. They will contain four local authority members to speak for the social services department, the finance department, the education department or any other department which the local authority wishes to be represented on the area health authorities. But I repeat that the primary purpose of this reform is the needs of the patient, the needs of the public, and in the world in which we live there are so many competing needs for the taxpayers' money that if we filled the area health authority with people


who have allegiance to another body they will not be as free as we wish to make decisions between the competing needs of the public. That is why we have devised the community health councils, which will be mainly composed of elected members and of representatives of voluntary bodies who will bring a totally fresh and new voice to ensure that the public's wishes and needs are continually represented to the decision-makers.

Dr. Stuttaford: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how he has altered his plans since the original consultative document came out in view of the extraordinary degree of opposition to them from members of the medical profession who are ultimately responsible for the health of the nation? Will he explain the difference between the public and the patients? Surely they are the same, and they are all voters.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that there was that degree of opposition to the consultative document from the medical profession. But, in the light of consultations and of the views expressed in the debate in the House, we have increased the emphasis on professional advisory bodies and we have increased the strength of the community health council.

Mr. Pavitt: Will not the regional health boards, by having complete charge of the purse-strings and having to pass the budget and hand out funds, entirely pre-empt activity at area level? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something in the legislation to alter the transfer of power which rests so much in the medical profession? The right hon. Gentleman has left teaching hospitals and university places absolutely intact at a time when democracy needs to be spread further. Is he satisfied with the expenditure of £200,000 of taxpayers' money which led to Appendix 3 of the management study? Does he think that we have value for money in that study?

Sir K. Joseph: If we do not have regional health authorities, we shall have to have regional departments of the Ministry. We have judged that we shall get quicker and more local decision-making by having regional health authorities. The teaching hospitals have a very great deal to contribute to the future of the health service, and we have

tried to achieve a balance between keeping their standards of excellence and integrating them with the regional authorities, which is our proposal in the White Paper. I am sure that the management study represented a very good use of public money.

Dame Irene Ward: In this great new scheme, which many people will welcome wholeheartedly, is the position of the nurses, physiotherapists and people supplementary to medicine fully catered for so that they may take a full part in dealing with policy making? In the past some of these bodies have not had as much opportunity to put their point of view as is necessary, in my opinion, for the health of the nation and the proper running of the service.

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes". Nurses will be on area health authorities and regional health authorities. There will be professional advisory bodies for the skills of which my hon. Friend speaks. I recently had a whole day conference with the physiotherapists, occupational therapists and remedical gymnasts, because I regard their potential contribution as very important.

Dr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will be open-minded about Amendments to his legislation and that he has not made any commitment to the professions from which he will not feel able to move? When he is considering the question of the professionals, will he consider the newer professionals, such as technicians and scientists, who contribute greatly to the National Health Service? Will he frame his legislation in such a way that it will be possible in future to unify the Health Service under a single administraation, namely, that of the local authority?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that the Government will remain open-minded, but we have had considerable consultations on the basis of the consultative document and have, I think, taken all conceivable points of view into account in arriving at our present decisions and proposals. Nevertheless, there will be another range of consultations as a result of the management study. The scientists are part of the health team, but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that it


will be practicable in the foreseeable future to unify the service under the local authorities. We must rule that out of account altogether for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Cockeram: Will the Secretary of State ensure that in the reorganised National Health Service consumers' complaints are made, not to the body charged with administering the service and whose judgment can rarely be detached, but to either an independent body or an independent person who can make a more impartial judgment?

Sir K. Joseph: There will be three channels for complaints: first, the Davis Committee, which will advise us on a better complaints procedure; secondly, the community health council, which will be the voice of the consumer; and, thirdly, the Health Service ombudsman. Therefore, I think that the consumer will have ample scope for complaint.

Mr. J. T. Price: Every hon. Member will wish to see improvements made in the National Health Service, both administratively and organisationally, but is the Secretary of State aware that one part of his statement has shocked Members on this side of the House? Does he realise that his proposal further to diminish the democratic nature of the management of this vast and costly service will not commend itself to any of my hon. Friends or to civic administrators who know anything about the service? I imagine that this will be the crux of future debates in the House. It is being said, and it has been said for years, that much damage has been done to the service as a result of the difficult attitude taken by some of the professionals in the service on whom we have to depend for co-operation. If the House of Commons were elected on the principle adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman in his new structure for the National Health Service, namely, a man's functional capacity, this House would be an even queerer place than it is.

Sir K. Joseph: The House will be wise to take into account the fact that the service, as it has grown up, has tended to neglect some of the most vulnerable groups in the community—the frail, the elderly, those who suffer from arthritis

and deafness, the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, and the physically disabled. This has happened with all the massive good will which has been at work. The object of the new service is to try to guard against such imbalances. For that purpose, we separate the decision-makers from those who speak for the public. If we confuse the two functions, we return to the situation in which many people put on hospital authorities as elected members have ceased primarily to represent the public and have come to defend management.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming a debate. Mr. Baker.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (PRINTING)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to repeat a statement made in another place by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal about the supply of Government papers to Parliament and to members of the public.
Owing to unofficial industrial action yesterday at the Parliamentary Printing Works by day and night staff who are responsible for the composing and printing operations, parliamentary and other papers are not available in their usual form. HANSARD was not printed, but limited copies of the transcript are available. Copies of the Order Paper and other documents necessary for today's business have also been made available in one form or another.
I am advised that normal working was resumed this morning.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the inconvenience that this causes the House, particularly the disruption of the printing of HANSARD. Most of the other documents are available in one form or another, but HANSARD is particularly difficult to reproduce. We note that work has now been resumed, and we welcome this.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for those comments. I should add that the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press has a high


tradition of serving this House and is very proud of the fact that it has on so few occasions let the House down.

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the cause of this strike? Am I right in thinking—

Hon. Members: Turn round.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the assistance of the House. I gather that I am unpopular for cutting short questions on the previous statement. I have done so only because of the important debate on the industrial situation which is to follow.

Mr. Allaun: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think the fault was mine.

Mr. Speaker: I agree.

Mr. Allaun: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman the cause of the strike. Am I right in thinking that it is not because of wages and conditions but because of solidarity with other trade unions against the Industrial Relations Act?

Mr. Baker: No. The hon. Gentleman is only partially informed of the cause. The position is that the local chapel of the National Graphical Association decided last week to come out in sympathy, and did not, apparently, receive notification that the printing strike had been called off. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no control over the local chapel in St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: This is a a regular occurrence. I wonder why we do not do our own printing on the premises.

Mr. Baker: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I refute that it is regular occurrence. The staff at St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press gives a service which is unmatched in any legislative assembly in the world.

PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS AND PERSONS

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to proscribe the establishment of offices, depots, accommodation addresses or other addresses or locations within the United Kingdom, by any person or organisation whose declared intentions may prejudice, militate against or be in any way hostile to the United Kingdom and the safety of citizens of the United Kingdom or British Commonwealth.
In recent months hon. Members and the British public have become increasingly aware of the apparent ease with which any organisation or person or group of persons whose aims are hostile or unfriendly to this country and the safety of the British people—and, for that matter, hostile to Commonwealth countries—may set up operational headquarters in the United Kingdom, raise funds and generally abuse the liberties of our democratic system, a system which has been evolved over the centuries by this country and is emulated by many countries both within and without the Commonwealth with whom we have friendly relations.
Currently, the position appears to be that anyone from anywhere can collect moneys for almost anything—good, bad or hostile—but as long as they do not directly participate in hostile activities, they are inviolate, particularly if they are British citizens. Organisations and people who conform to reasonable and recognisable standards of behaviour within the country are welcome here but, to use an emotive phrase, if they become vipers in our bosom they are unwelcome. I have no time for British people who owe no allegiance to their native land. I have little time for those who come here as aliens and abuse the hospitality of this country, as some are doing.
In recent weeks hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asking questions and showing extreme concern about the proposal to set up an office in London by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which openly boasts of having been responsible for the massacre in Tel Aviv, when 26 civilians were killed and 78 wounded. I have here a list of 28 other incidents in which this organisation has been involved during the last four years.
These activities extend over Europe and the Middle East, two of them being in London. One was the placing of an incendiary bomb in Marks and Spencer; the other was the wounding of an employee of an Israeli shipping line by a grenade. In other incidents on my list citizens of the British Commonwealth were held at risk and their lives endangered. During the four years from July, 1968, 103 people have been killed by this organisation, 288 have been injured and 400 people have been involved in three major instances of the hijacking of planes belonging to BOAC, Pan American Airways and Trans World Airlines.
This organisation does not operate in isolation. I learn from the New York Times of 15th July, 1972, and the Daily Telegraph of the same date that an organisation operating in conjunction with the Palestine Liberation Organisation centred in Zurich co-ordinates the activities of the Palestine Liberation Organisation with those of the Irish Republican Army and the Tupamaros of Uruguay who were responsible for the kidnapping of Sir Geoffrey Jackson. Branches known as the Red Guard also operate in Tokyo, and there are branches in other parts of the world.
The aims of these organisations are hostile to the British way of life, but as the law stands there is nothing to prevent them establishing themselves in this country and setting up offices.
The intentions of the Bill are as set out in the preamble; namely, to proscribe the organisations and persons involved in these hostile activities, to impose penalties on those involved, and to make certain types of activity, such as fund raising for those activities, illegal. Moneys collected would be impounded and refunded to donors upon suitable proof being produced. I submit that a Bill to prevent this country becoming a haven for revolutionary activities is essential and I seek the leave of the House to bring in the Proscribed Organisations and Persons Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bray, Mr. James Allason, Mr. Biggs-Davison, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Carol Mather, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mrs. Monks and Mr. Soref.

PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS AND PERSONS

To proscribe the establishment of offices, depots, accommodation addresses or other addresses or locations within the United Kingdom, by any person or organisation whose declared intentions may prejudice, militate against or be in any way hostile to the United Kingdom and the safety of citizens of the United Kingdom or British Commonwealth, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

INDUSTRIAL SITUATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: It has almost become a weekly event for this House to debate industrial relations. Each time we debate this subject the situation seems to become more grave. The effects of the Industrial Relations Act become still more damaging to our country and the need is all the more urgent for us to press the Government to repeal or drastically amend this legislation. Certainly the need is all the greater for Conservative Members to improve on their unconvincing arguments for keeping the Act.
I wish to begin my remarks on perhaps a less controversial note than the way in which I propose to continue my speech a little later. I am sure the whole House is united in hoping that developments this week will lead to a speedy end to the national dock strike. I am bound to repeat the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition from these benches on Thursday, and which I expressed on Friday, that the report of the Committee under Jack Jones and Lord Aldington is a very good report and might well have provided the basis for a return to work last week.
It is a pity that the main emphasis in public discussion has been on the redundancy arrangements in the report. I believe that the central, most important and revolutionary proposal in the report is the complete abolition of the temporary unattached register by 4th September.
There are also proposals that every docker during the weeks between now and 4th September should be allocated to an employer and that, subsequently, if any of those employers goes out of business, those dockers should be re-allocated to another employer in the port so that they have an assurance of employment. It provides a degree of protection in an industry suffering from technological unemployment—a degree of protection which in many ways is unique because of the background in the dock industry—and I believe it is a very important ad-

vance which the dockers can claim as a victory.
On the other hand, nobody should underestimate the reasons lying behind the decision by a majority of dockers at the delegate conference that the report is not acceptable in this form. I expressed the view in the House on Friday that I would have supported the 28 who voted for a return to work on that basis, but the reasons for other delegates taking the view they do are twofold. The Secretary of State tried to suggest that there was some difference of view between hon. Members on this side of the House on that subject, but I suggest we are saying that there are two basic reasons. One is the underlying bitterness and tension arising from the events of the preceding days following the gaoling of the five dockers, to which I will return in a moment.
Side by side with that event was the deep feeling among the delegates that they needed assurances of a more definite and concrete form than those which were contained in the report. To understand the reasons for this feeling we must have regard to the whole history of employment and industrial relations in the dock areas over a very long period of time. We also must have regard to the bitterness in industrial relations which has been part of the scene in dockland for a long time. Furthermore, we must take full account of the rapid decline in jobs, a decline of over one-third in seven years, and must also bear in mind all the promises which have been given but which have remained unfulfilled.
It must be recognised that what have been advocated as solutions to the situation in the past have not provided the degree of security which has been sought for so long. We must put the Devlin Report in that category. That report appeared to be a good report at the time it was published and its implementation was rightly promoted by the Labour Government after a long period of persuasion by union leaders.
The fact is that what has happened since has not provided the continuity of employment which was indicated in the Devlin Report. The temporary unattached register—which was intended to he a temporary means of providing full back pay in quite exceptional


circumstances for the docker returning to work after sickness, or the docker returning to work after a disciplinary offence, or for odd cases of that kind—has been playing a larger and larger part in the picture. We see from the figures given in the Jones-Aldington Report that there are now 1,650 dockers on that register, with every prospect that the number will grow in the latter part of this year if no fundamental changes are made.
Against this background it was not unnatural that many people among the dockers should say, "We want to see parts of the report translated into more definite assurances"—particularly those parts of it which fall to be implemented, not by the dock authorities, but by employers whose origins are to some extent outside dockland, namely, those involved in group container depots of one kind or another—and there are many such depots.
Therefore, the message should go out from both sides of this House that we hope that during this week the firms involved in this kind of employment will be prepared to come forward and to give assurances that they will implement those parts of the report which refer to this situation. There is a crisis of confidence which needs to be overcome. I believe that it can be overcome and that, if this happens, a recalled dock delegate conference within a matter of days could come to a different decision. It is much in the interests of dockers and the industry, and indeed of the country, that this should come about.
All our attention has been focused on phase one of the Jones-Aldington Report, and it must be remembered that these proposals have been made as an interim report in the last week or so. If there is a return to work nobody is entitled to lose sight of this problem or to neglect the steps that need to be taken to bring about the important work which needs to be undertaken under phase two of the report in the next five or six months. This will include a study of a pension scheme, of retirement age, of retraining and of the future manpower requirements of the industry. It will include a study of possible measures to iron out as far as possible the difference between the peaks and troughs of employment in dockland. Above all it will study the

relationship between the scheme ports and the non-scheme ports—the registered and unregistered ports—which is one of the most difficult parts of the problem.
The Committee has taken the view so far that an approach should be made to this by way of negotiation. It does not take the view at this stage that an approach should be made to the Government for legislation on the matter. However I make the point in passing that legislation may be required. If it is, we ought to react to that need quickly.
Certainly in the Humberside area and in the London area a great deal of the trouble has come from what is regarded as unfair competition—the blacklegging by employers of the whole dock labour scheme.
We in this House are far too much in the habit of debating the problems of an industry or group of men when they are at crisis point, and then forgetting them afterwards. This is a problem that we shall need to study and on which we shall want to question Ministers and possibly to have debates over a long period.
Part of the difficulty that dockers feel is that everyone neglects them except on those occasions when they kick up a row. Over the years they feel that they have suffered from bad employers. Sometimes they feel unjustifiably I think, that their unions are too remote and that politicians of all parties are concerned with their problems only in a national crisis of this kind. We have to take these lesson to heart and to be prepared to give longer and more careful consideration to these problems in the period ahead.
I sum up what I have said so far by expressing the hope that in the next week or so moderate counsels will prevail on both sides of the industry. Certainly they should do this week on the employers' side if they are to do so a day or two later at a delegate conference.
That leads me to wider questions. How can this Government expect moderate counsels to prevail in any industry when they have insisted upon the passage and retention on the Statute Book of legislation which makes it virtually impossible for moderate voices to be heard? The charge that we level against the Industrial Relations Act as it is working in practice is that it puts a premium on the bad


employer and on the extreme militant on the union side and that it is liable to destroy the efforts of those who are working for moderation. If anyone doubted that a couple of weeks ago, I urge him to consider it in the context of the last 10 days.
We had been on the verge of a national dock strike for some months. It had twice been called and twice postponed by the national delegate conference. The Jones-Aldington Committee got to work with considerable skill and speed. Three days before its report was available, five men were sent to gaol and the docks were brought to a standstill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite why. In this debate the onus of proof is on them to tell this House and the country why they persisted in supporting a situation which could only lead to this result.

Mr. David Mitchell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain in what way the Industrial Relations Act caused dockers to try to steal other trade unionists' work?

Mr. Prentice: I have put it to the House on previous occasions that in a situation where there is very high unemployment and where men are in desperate competition with each other for jobs, there will be struggles of this nature. But when such a struggle breaks out at one cold store involving a few dozen jobs, it is ridiculous for such an argument to escalate into a national crisis in the way that it has.
Let me put this to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). What he and others have to answer is whether they really believe that the gaoling of the five dockers had no effect on the decision of the national dock delegate conference. If they believe that, they will believe anything.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: How does what happened to the five dockers affect the merits or demerits of the Jones-Aldington Report? Why could not that report be judged on its own merits, if prejudice was not introduced from the outside?

Mr. Prentice: Whatever else one may think of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), he is an experienced politician and I am sure

that he will remember many occasions in his life when strain, tension and emotion have affected decisions. He says that it had nothing to do with the merits of the Jones-Aldington Report. However, it produced an atmosphere in which the report was not considered entirely on its merits and in which there was bound to be an emotional reaction. These are the facts of industrial life, and this is precisely the kind of situation about which we warned the Government when the Industrial Relations Bill was being debated in this House. We said that it would happen, and it has. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have to face the fact that it has happened. They have also to face the appalling new situation that it has created.
Another argument used is that we have to pay a price in terms of industrial relations because it is essential to uphold the rule of law. We are told that the five men could have gone to gaol under other legislation. That is theoretically possible. But it never happened in this way. They could have gone to gaol under other legislation. They were guilty of contempt and the law had to be upheld. This argument has been used many times in newspaper editorials, ministerial speeches and so on in past weeks.
However, I ask the House to consider the sequence of events of the last 10 days. Five men were sent to gaol following contempt of the court. Four days later, without purging their contempt and without apologising, they came out of gaol. I say in parentheses that the reason given by Sir John Donaldson was the House of Lords decision in the Heaton case. But the reason given by the dockers themselves as they spoke to the crowd outside Pentonville was the reason which will be believed by most people in this country. They told the crowd, "We were put in gaol by a political court and we have got out by the united efforts of the trade union movement." That is what was said and that is what many people will believe.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite to consider what happened after that. The following day, all five of them went back on to the picket lines. They continued to defy the order of the court. Yesterday Midland Cold Storage went to the court and said that it dropped the case. I ask, again in parentheses, why


it did that. The answer is that it was recognised that if the five dockers had gone back to gaol there would have been no hope of the dockers returning to work.
I ask those who argue that this is an exercise designed to uphold the rule of law to reflect on whether this comic opera sequence of events really upholds respect for the law, or does it have the opposite effect? Many of us feel deeply about the rule of law in this country. We do not mind so much if the Government of our country are made to look ridiculous. But we mind very much when the system of law and the courts of law are made to look ridiculous. This is what Lord Devlin said the other night on "Panorama", and it is a matter that we should take very carefully into account.
This situation has made the rule of law look ridiculous. Men defy the law. They go to gaol for contempt of court. They come out without apologising and without purging their contempt. They continue the activities which put them into gaol. Finally the whole case is dropped. This is the kind of ridiculous result that one gets from this ridiculous Act.

Captain Walter Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman has not completed the story. The bit he left out is that the Transport and General Workers Union has to pay a fine of £55,000.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is anticipating me. I was coming on to that point. That is the alibi which has been used. We are told that the situation is now very different since the House of Lords judgment has upheld the original decision of the National Industrial Relations Court. We are told that we can regard the events of the last10 days as some sort of aberration due to the temporary mistake of the Court of Appeal, and that now it will all be different. The Prime Minister was gloating over this on ITN last week, and last night he repeated his views on "Panorama". He said that all that needed to happen was for the union to put its house in order.
One feature about the House of Lords judgment which should be noted by

Ministers, and by the Solicitor-General in particular, is that there is grave disquiet about the way the appeal was handled. Reports have appeared in the Press, and I have seen a copy of a letter today which the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union has sent to the General Secretary of the TUC, about the way the case was conducted. The feeling on the part of the union, the lawyers involved in the case on the union's side, and, I am told, among many other lawyers, is that the case was so rushed that the validity of the judgment is being challenged by many people who would not normally do so.
I should not normally criticise a judicial decision of the House of Lords, but in this sensitive area it is as well that every aspect should be considered. I do not know how many hon. Members have read the judgment of their Lordships, but I found it the loosest form of argument which I have ever read in a judicial decision. It is open to some of the criticism which has been made.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any criticism of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which was given far more speedily? The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which went the other way, was heard in four or five days instead of eight or ten days.

Mr. Prentice: There were a great many criticisms of that decision, many of them made by hon. Members opposite. However, all of us have to regard this series of decisions in relation to the reality of the situation, and it is that to which I now want to turn.
Whether the decision was right in law, in the sense that it gave a correct interpretation of the Act, we now have to live with the consequences. I return to the Prime Minister's statement that the union needs to put its house in order. What does that mean? I hope that we will hear the answer from hon. Members opposite in the debate.
Apparently the doctrine is that the constitution of a small or large trade union—and the Transport and General Workers Union is a very large one, with several different trade groups extending over many different industries—should become so totalitarian that orders issued


from its head office are obeyed in all its thousands of branches, by all its officials, shop stewards and representatives acting in any capacity in any firm or industry throughout the country. If that is what hon. Members opposite want, I put to them one practical point, which I am sure has been overlooked. It is made in an article in this morning's edition of The Times by Mr. Eric Wigham, when he says:
But they have no effective sanction against members or shop stewards because the Act has made the closed shop illegal. If they withdraw the credentials of the stewards, or even expel them, the stewards can continue in their employment and carry on as before.
If hon. Members opposite seriously want that kind of internal discipline in unions, and if they think that it is practical, which I do not, they had better introduce Amendments to the Act to provide for universal closed shops throughout the whole of British industry, instead of moving in the opposite direction as they did when introducing the Act.
There are other considerations. Any trade union leader who set out on that course would fail, and deserve to fail—it would be a nonsense. The effective choice in a crisis is for the union leadership to set out to weaken the union by taking away the credentials of the shop stewards or expelling them from the organisation, or to sit back and see the union weakened by the gradual sequestration of its assets. One way or the other, there is a serious weakening of trade union leadership in the terms of an Act which was alleged to be designed to strengthen trade union leadership.
I am trying to put a series of challenges to hon. Members opposite, not just Ministers but back benchers, if they are to continue to support this legislation. First, what would have happened to the dock situation over the last month or two if the Transport and General Workers Union had been weakened in either of those two different ways? The situation would still remain. All the problems would remain—the rise of unemployment, the container issue, the temporary unattached register and other matters. The same employers would have to deal with the same shop stewards, but the missing feature would be the union as a national organisation. We would have

no Jones-Aldington Report, because the authority of Mr. Jones, as the joint chairman of that committee, derives from the fact that he is the leader of the biggest trade union involved. If that union is destroyed or weakened to the point where it has no influence, then it is no longer available to solve any problems, and the solution of the problems is made more difficult than it would have been.
Grave though the crisis has been in the last week or two, if the Act remains on the Statute Book in its present form, when we next have a crisis of these proportions the damage done by the Industrial Relations Act may well be much greater than anything we have had so far. The Prime Minister used an extraordinary throw-away phrase at Question time this afternoon, when he said that those who criticise the Act should put forward a constructive alternative. That is a silly piece of impertinence in view of the work which the Labour Party and the TUC have undertaken over many months on that question, and on which we produced an interim report last week.
The interim report includes the commitment which we have held for a long time, to repeal the Industrial Relations Act as one of the first measures of a Labour Government when we are returned to office. It includes a provisional description—our work is not finished—of the legal framework which we would put in its place, including the restoration to the trade unions of something like the legal status which they had from 1906 to 1971, and the degree of liberty which they rightly had from proceedings in tort. Our report refers to the right to belong to a union, the obligation on employers to recognise unions, appeals against unfair dismissals and other matters. It includes proposals for conciliation and advisory services to provide a genuine independent source of conciliation and arbitration which is so badly needed in industry today.
When we spell out these matters we always find that some journalist—Mr. David Wood in yesterday's edition of The Times is the latest of a series—reacts with surprise, as though we had just thought of the promise to repeal the Industrial Relations Act. He then describes it as some sort of surrender to the unions, and asks, "What did the Labour Party get in return?" That is


becoming a bit corny. We have been committed to the repeal of the Act from its inception as a Bill, not because the trade unions want repeal but because it is in the national interest to get rid of an Act which is damaging to the whole community. It is not a matter of the trade unions against other people; but of the increasing damage week by week which the Industrial Relations Act is doing to our economy and the whole fabric of our society.
I put it to the Government that if they cannot go all the way with our proposals, at least they could go some of the way. If they say the cannot repeal the Act, I point out that there has been no shortage in the last week or two of alternative suggestions: suspending the Act, putting it on ice, or introducing radical amendments to it. For example, there was the suggestion that approaches to the court should be made only by the Secretary of State or, the alternative version, that there should be some kind of board or commission through which references to the court should be made. There have been a number of suggestions. The need to do something along these lines is becoming more urgent day by day.
I repeat, in view of the mounting failure of the situation, in view of the damage now recognised by nearly everyone in this community except the Government and Conservative back benchers, the onus of proof is on them to say why they intend to persist with measures which are doing so much damage.
The people of this country are sick and tired of destructive confrontation; they are entitled to something better than that. That is why the wrecking should cease, and the main wreckers are on the Treasury Bench. The increasing incidence of time lost through industrial disputes, under this Government, particularly since the Act has been in force, is evidence of this. I put it to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, once again, that this mixture of farce and tragedy from which we have suffered in the last few weeks will occur again and again, and may occur in a much worse form in future than it has so far unless they are prepared to repeal or to suspend this Act which has done so much damage.

4.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I hope the House will forgive my apparent discourtesy in leaving earlier and being absent from a greater part of the debate than I should normally wish. I shall be able to do so for one reason only, to be present at the tripartite discussions between the TUC, the CBI and the Government which are now taking place and are very much a part of the industrial scene we are debating.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) suggested that the onus of proof was on the Government to show that the Act was working. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the time lost in industrial disputes. One could equally quote—I suggest with more validity since it was a standard and criterion accepted by the Labour Party when in Government—that there has been a decreasing number of strikes over the last few years. We should recall that such problems and tensions existed before the Act and were, indeed, if anything, increased by the Labour Government's failure to deal with them.
Certainly the right hon. Gentleman's object was to help, not hinder, in the docks dispute. He did not cast doubt on—rather, he welcomed—the Aldington-Jones proposals, the rejection of which is the immediate cause of the national docks strike. Despite the censorious tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it is only right that I should acknowledge the helpfulness in this respect of not only the right hon. Member for East Ham, North but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite representing dockland constituencies. They have stated firmly and unequivocally, as, indeed, has the Leader of the Opposition, that the three parts of these proposals—work-sharing financed by the industry itself, negotiation on part-load container work, and improved severance financed by the Government—are a valuable first stage towards a longer-term solution—I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for stressing the elements other than severance pay, because an earlier stress given to that aspect of the proposals was rather misleading to some of the dock workers who felt that not enough attention was being paid to the prospects of getting off


the temporary unattached register—and give time for the second part of the Aldington-Jones Committee's Report and work. Again, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that there is more to come.
I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have generally welcomed the Aldington-Jones proposals. Whatever the history, I certainly accept what the right hon. Member for East Ham, North said about the fears of those who have been put on the unattached register, in many cases suddenly and rather more speedily than any of us believed. I hope the whole House will support the joint chairmen in their efforts to give confidence to dockland, not only in the immediate situation but in future.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whilst we welcome the present proposals, further conciliation will not be at the expense of damage to ports such as Harwich and Felixstowe?

Mr. Macmillan: Lord Aldington and Mr. Jones, as joint chairmen of the Committee, have made it plain that they stand completely and entirely by the words in the report that they have issued. They are concentrating their work on giving the extra assurance that is possible on Part B of the report, which all those who are familiar with this problem will realise is the immediate difficulty with which they are concerned at this stage.
The main purpose of the debate is, clearly, to pretend that the sort of industrial problems that we are discussing began with the Industrial Relations Act and that its repeal would in some way help to solve the problems that right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite refused to face when in Government.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are prepared to consider constructive proposals from the unions or the employers in due course.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will produce chapter and verse to show who on this side has said that these problems began with the Industrial Relations Act. Certainly they have been intensified. These problems were old, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Having paid tribute,

quite fairly to what we have said about the Aldington-Jones Report, will he tell the House what the attitude of the then Leader of the House and his colleagues was at the time of the seamen's strike in 1966, since they did everything in their power to make it more difficult to settle?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about that. It is clear that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have tried to indicate that the prime cause of the docks strike is the Industrial Relations Act. This is absolute nonsense.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are prepared to consider constructive proposals from the unions or the employers in due course. I have no doubt that the Government will in due course have some proposals to put forward, too.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council made it equally clear in the debates on the Bill that it would take time for the Act to be accepted. So far the only firm proposition that has been put forward to the Government by either the Opposition or the trade unions has been to repeal or to suspend the Act. In supporting this attitude the Opposition may be seeking to damage the Tory Party, but they are also helping the extremist element which they themselves deplored and which they tried to deal with when in Government but failed.
Let me remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of some of the problems which led them to set up the Donovan Commission. It was in reply to a Question in December, 1964, that the then Minister of Labour made it plain that the Government's decision to set up the Donovan Commission followed their decision to introduce legislation to deal with the unsatisfactory situation created by the judgment in the Rookes v. Barnard case, and I have no quarrel with that. The Prime Minister of the day then announced the appointment of the Donovan Commission during a debate in February, 1965.
Since then there have been many disputes and situations similar to those that we are facing now. For example, in 1968 there was the Girlings, Bromborough, dispute, when 22 machine


setters on unofficial strike caused the layoff of thousands of workers in the motor car industry, which led to a court of inquiry. The inquiry criticised shop stewards for intemperance of manner and stubbornness, but it also criticised management, as indeed the NIRC might well do if unions were to use it properly. In 1969 there were unofficial strikes at Port Talbot and in the coal mining industry. In April and May of 1970 there was the Pilkington official strike, and there was dissatisfaction in the clothing and other industries, when unofficial stoppages again affected thousands of people. In this case, at no time, were there more than 170,000 people on strike, including the dock workers, out of a total labour force of about 20 million.
When the Donovan Report came out, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as the Government, came to much the same sort of conclusion as we on this side of the House did in opposition, that the voluntarist approach was not by itself enough and that a background of law was needed, and this was made clear by statements in "In Place of Strife". The difference between the two sides is that in Government we have sustained the principle of having a background of law, while right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite abandoned it, and now that they are in opposition they have indicated once again that they would abandon this principle and that if they were to be re-elected—the statement on industrial relations published last Wednesday makes this plain—there would be no imposition of any kind of duty on the trade unions. But, as Mr. David Wood said in the article in The Times to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, trade unions not only have rights but have duties. It may be corny to say that, but it does not stop being true.

Mr. William Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macmillan: No. The Opposition are saying that the trade unions have rights—

Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macmillan: No.

Mr. Molloy: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that the House would wish to hear what the Minister has to say. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Macmillan: The Opposition are saying—

Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macmillan: No.

Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. Macmillan: No. The Opposition are saying that the trade unions have rights but not duties, that there is no need for any element of public accountability or consumer interest beyond that supplied by the unions themselves representing their members as consumers as well as producers.

Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macmillan: According to the doctrine of the Opposition, laws must be acceptable—

Mr. Molloy: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows very well that if the Minister does not give way he must resume his seat.

Mr. Macmillan: I shall give way when I have reached the end of this part of my argument.
The Opposition are saying that the law must be acceptable to those who are mainly affected by it if it is to be widely acceptable throughout the community. It is really as if they were arguing that speed limits should be settled by motorists alone, on the ground that they are sometimes pedestrians. Some union leaders themselves take a similar view. They claim—and they do so properly—the right to be consulted in forming industrial relations policy, but they deny that they have either the obligation or the ability to ensure that it is carried out.

Mr. Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the trade unions were not consulted and that it does not help the present dangerous situation for him to make the kind of remarks that he


is making in the cosy atmosphere of this House? Does he not understand that it is difficult for anybody in any walk of life to have to accept a law that has been shown to be so ridiculous that the Government have had to be saved time and again by the Official Solicitor? This is because of the hopelessness of the legislation which they have rammed through the House in the teeth of sensible and helpful opposition.

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think I shall accept that what I am saying is exacerbating the situation. I am not attacking the trade unions. I have been very careful to say that it is the Opposition who are taking this view, not the trade union movement, and, in view of what has been said by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, a little self-defence cannot be construed as a major attack, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), with his previous experience, knows very well.
As for previous consultation, the present Lord President of the Council made it quite clear in a letter of 29th September to the trade union movement that he was willing to consult except on matters of major principle and except on the matter of having a basis of law, and it was on that basis that the trade unions felt it not worth their while going on with consultation.
Events have proved that this constant reiteration of the suggestion that management and unions alone should try to reform industrial relations does not work. Time and again it has been said "Let us sort it out together"; but what happens? The answer is really nothing, and that is why a framework of law is necessary, as many hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit in their hearts, to strengthen—not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to weaken—responsible union leadership, and to protect every citizen against the irresponsible or malicious.
I accept that the law cannot of itself produce good industrial relations but, equally, I believe that it is not possible in the world today to succeed in creating a stable system of good industrial relations without a framework of law to act as a basis for setting out the rights and duties of unions and employers to each other and to the whole community. That

is the central purpose of the Industrial Relations Act and the Code of Practice that goes with it.
We have seen the same principles apply the other way round in the Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work. There have been many years of legislation on these matters of safety and health at work, and the report by Lord Robens introduces an element of voluntary co-operation on the ground that "the law alone is not enough". I agree, and I hope that hon. Members generally will agree. I further agree with Lord Robens that voluntary co-operation needs a firm statutory base sustainable in the courts, and that is exactly the status of the Industrial Relations Act and the Industrial Relations Court.
The court is not a political court. Despite the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that the case against the dock workers was dropped by the Midland Cold Storage Company because, although there was picketing, there was no evidence of blacking. The judgment of the National Industrial Relations Court, supported by that of the Law Lords, made it perfectly plain that it was not the peaceful picketing that was an unfair industrial practice but the national blacking. In any case, the decision of the Law Lords meant that if any proceedings were to be taken they should more properly be taken against the union. What recent events have proved is that, while no person or organisation can be above the law, no one is beyond its care, not even those who seek to reject it. The most important judgment of the NIRC has been sustained by the unanimous opinion of five Law Lords. It is difficult for even the most prejudiced to accuse the highest court of the land of making a biased or politically prejudiced judgment.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Before the Minister departs from the Midland Cold Storage issue to which he has just referred rather briefly, in the light of what has happened would he commend to the House the view expressed by the Prime Minister, that this was a case of unprovoked bullying, having regard to the revelations made in the Sunday Times concerning the Vestey family's interest and provocative actions?

Mr. Macmillan: It is perfectly plain, first, that Midland Cold Storage did not


rush into industrial action. It took a long time to get as far as that. Secondly, no one can deny that the law is open to all, large and small. Any variation on that principle cannot be defended.
It is not the Industrial Relations Act that is creating the present difficulties. I do not believe that most trade union members want to be above the law. [Interruption.] I am not quarrelling with right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. But, as I say, I do not believe that. I accept that many trade union leaders find it hard to deal with and accept this new concept of their responsibilities. The intransigent attitude of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition is not exactly helping, especially to get a definitive and positive response from the unions to indicate where they believe the Act can be improved. So far, they have concentrated on seeking its repeal or its suspension.
Another argument that has been advanced is that it is wrong, in the way that the existence of the Industrial Relations Act and the National Industrial Relations Court implies, to try to concentrate the handling of industrial relations at the centre just at the time when managements, wisely, are trying to decentralise responsibilities and delegate powers to the factory and the shop floor. I do not think that the Act does this. It recognises the authority and powers of responsible shop stewards. I gladly pay tribute to the good work they have done and are doing in many cases up and down the country in British industry to make good industrial relations and good working relationships with management. The Act sustains responsible shop stewards acting in accordance with union policy. But both management and union officials, at every level, at branch and shop floor level, must ultimately be responsible, the managements to the boards of directors, and the shop stewards to the unions.
But it is not a question of trying to impose a dictatorial organisation on a union. I cannot accept—I do not believe the country can accept—an argument that has been put forward by some union leaders which implies that having 30,000 shop stewards makes it impossible for them to follow union policy, although they are theoretically bound to do so,

and which at the same time denies that the law can protect people who are affected by what the unions admit is a practice they are trying to stop.
Nor is it true that the conciliation or the increased confrontation in industrial disputes has been worsened by the Act. Ever since the war we have had serious problems in industrial relations and in the management of our economy. All too often—and this is relevant in the context of what is happening now—we have allowed these very serious difficulties to become magnified, and as a country we have talked ourselves into a more serious crisis than is necessary. I hope that this will not happen over dockland today. The present stoppage is a very serious and damaging problem, but it is not yet a disaster, and let us not believe that this is so. It is a problem that can be resolved by the work now being carried forward. I hope that I shall have the opportunity to hear a progress report from the joint chairmen before their committee meets again.
The main cause of most of our troubles, including those on the industrial scene, is inflation. The principles of the Industrial Relations Act have not in any way made it worse, nor, if they were rejected, would that have any effect on either inflation or the underlying causes of industrial strife, because it is inflation which provides the serious tensions which are making life so difficult.
I believe that working together to defeat inflation will help the industrial relations situation; working together not negatively in restrictive policies or simply trying to restrain money incomes, but working positively to achieve an increase in real incomes and to keep down prices, matching the rise in money incomes to a steady and regular increase in output and investment. That is just what the Government are now doing with the TUC and the CBI. We are trying to achieve this and to deal with some of the special problems such as the low paid.
We have made it very clear that we are willing to reconsider parts of the Industrial Relations Act that either unions or employers believe to be unsatisfactory or damaging to their legitimate interests; to look at parts of the Act which are operating in ways perhaps not originally intended. I have little doubt that in due


course the Government themselves will have some proposals for improving the workings of the Act. But it must be within the framework of the law, based on the principle that no individual and no organisation, however important or however powerful, whether of employers or of workpeople, can be above the law or can seek to take from this House the power to decide what laws shall be made or to take from the courts the power to enforce the law. It is this principle that the Opposition are seeking to deny. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is this principle that this House will uphold.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: When the Press returned to work at the end of last week The Times devoted a full section of its leader to a typical, thundering piece under the heading, "Yes, we are in danger". One would not have thought from the tone of the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment and from the soporific way he read his history essay that we were in any danger whatsoever.
If we accept that we are in danger, we must accept that it has stemmed from, and has been aggravated by, the policy of confrontation which the Government appear to have been hell bent on ever since they came to office. We can go back to the time of the last election and recall the speeches made by members of the present Government throughout the country, in which they led people to believe that we had only to wait for the return to power of the Conservative Party and all would be peace and that they would apply some magic formula which would be called an industrial relations Bill, and that when this happened all industrial unrest would suddenly cease.
Instead of that, the industrial situation is not just as bad as ever; it is actually much worse. Strife and trouble have now been extended into the law courts.
If the Government are to succeed in the tripartite talks and achieve their stated objectives, they must start by trying to create a new climate based on a sense of fairness—fairness between different groups of people and fairness based on reconciliation rather than confrontation.
I believe that the present policies and the present situation give joy to only two

groups of people—lawyers and agitators. It is not any part of our purpose in the House to further the interests of either as an end in itself.
In our recent debates on the industrial and the economic situation some of my colleagues have argued the case for what is now being called a new social contract. I suggest that this should have four distinct ingredients. The first ingredient in any new social contract—here I agree with the very able case made earlier by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)—must be an examination of the Industrial Relations Act and a willingness at least to consider Amendments to it. The Minister twice used the phrase "in due course" If there is a clear case for Amendments, they should be dealt with now. Must there be doctrinaire objections? Must some magic period of time pass before it is accepted that changes must be made in the Act?

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that until and unless unions such as the Transport and General Workers' Union have rules drawn up that they can work to and which comply with the Royal Commission's recommendations, whether it be in the form of a code of practice or otherwise, until the duties and responsibilities of shop stewards are clearly defined, and as long as so many of the major unions refuse to register under the Act and to have any modern rules, we do not begin to have a basis upon which we can consider the type of Amendments to the Act to which the hon. Gentleman is referring?

Mr. Steel: I do not accept that. I do not say that everything on the trade union side is lovely or that there is not much to be done in trade union organisations. I am arguing the simple proposition that the Industrial Relations Act, as we have seen it operate, is clearly in need of revision. I shall instance some Amendments that might be made.
This is particularly important because the Secretary of State illustrated clearly that, because of the creation of this piece of legislation, the law itself has been brought into disrepute. Mr. David Watt, Political Editor of the Financial Times. put this very well on Friday in these words: "Lawyers"—that includes the


hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies)—
will say that there is nothing particularly odd in their world in a High Court judge having his judgment unanimously over-turned by three Appeal Court judges who are themselves unanimously slapped down by five Law Lords. It may be so, but the trouble is that when the subject under discussion is one of burning political controversy requiring special sessions, unprecedented interventions, and the ministrations of the tipstaff, the man in the street is quite incapable of accepting that the process has not been a political one.
The basic defect of the Act is that the courts have been required to make political judgments. These judgments should be made by politicians in the House and they should not be thrust upon the courts.
I support the view that one major Amendment which should be made without further delay arises from consideration of the parallel situation set up by the Race Relations Act, under which anybody, large or small, individual or corporate body, is entitled to make a complaint to the Race Relations Board, but it is the board that decides whether matters will be improved or aggravated by taking the case to the courts. This is a very good parallel and some such machinery could well be established by amending the Industrial Relations Act without even accepting the case for outright repeal which is the policy of the official Opposition. There are distinct improvements which could be made immediately without even accepting the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, and that is where a start should be made.
The second aspect of any new social contract should be a much more detailed and serious dialogue, initiated by the Department of Employment, with the trade union movement, not just on the docks situation but on the effects of technology on industry as a whole.
Again, the Secretary of State was honest and right to say that politicians as a whole have been guilty of ignoring the problems of dockland until a crisis occurs and that, when successive crises have occurred, only then have successive Governments turned their attention to the problems of the docks.
Just as the Jones-Aldington recommendations have come very late in the day, what we see with the advent of containerisation in the docks is merely a

very clear and lucid illustration of what is happening in industry as a whole. With high unemployment and with increased mechanisation, even in fairly traditional craft industries such as I have in my constituency, the labour force is dropping.
Therefore, if we are to avoid a persistently high level of unemployment, two things will have to be recognised—first, that there will probably have to be more employment in service industries, a requirement which underlines the ludicrous nature of the theories behind the selective employment tax and, second, that there will be more leisure and, therefore, a shorter working week as a general course.
One of the aspects of our society which I think should be changed is the dependence of many people on regular overtime earnings to raise a reasonable weekly standard of living. The Government and the trade unions collectively should be giving more serious thought to the long-term changes in our patterns of work, and discussions on the future organisation of the docks should be merely one of these.
Third, in any kind of social contract we have to consider the fairness to the Government's economic policy and the question whether there should be a voluntary or statutory incomes policy.
The greatest mistake that has been made both by the Labour Government and more particularly by the Conservative Government is that they have applied the term "incomes policy" purely on the basis of fixed percentages of actual current earnings so that somebody who is on a low wage is told, "The Government of the day think that this year 7 per cent. is about right, and we will resist anything above that". Then these people see that the chairmen of the nationalised industries or members of the judicial bench are being told exactly the same, "Sorry, we are having an incomes policy at present and 7 per cent. is the current norm. You cannot have more than 7 per cent."
It is an obvious truism that 7 per cent. of a salary of £20,000 is a very different matter from 7 per cent. of a salary of £1,000. One cannot get away from this fact. It is no use denying that neither under the previous Administration nor under the present one have we made


great strides towards a more egalitarian society in which people feel that the amount of work that they put in during the course of a week is being fairly rewarded and that they are being fairly protected against increased prices.
A point made very effectively in a recent debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was that this is a society which is encouraging the development of speculation both in property and on the stock market, The fact is that anybody who has wealth or any property behind him can afford to say, "I will go along with the Government's policy"; because his real wealth, whether it be in property or in shares, is not being affected and he can have an increased feeling of security and can grow richer all the time while accepting all the apparent norms of wage or salary increases.
Any fair economic policy must take into account some control over property speculation, over dividends paid on shares, and over capital appreciation of shares.
Fourth, and last, I believe that any form of social contract must take account of the need to bring into industry a greater feeling of partnership. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party drew attention in our last debate to the company code in Western Germany. We should go further than that. We should not simply look at what is happening elsewhere and say that we will do the same.
There are particular measures we could introduce based on the experience of Western Germany which would help. I say this particularly to the Labour Party. One of the great lost opportunities of public ownership in Britain is that we have failed to use Government control over a large sector of industry for experiments in industrial relations. There is a clear case for saying that because these industries are under Government control we should consider adopting part of the German practice with some directors elected from employees. We could consider statutory works councils in all the nationalised industries for a start. The nearest we are to that is in the British Steel Corporation where there are a few workers' directors appointed in the units of the Corporation by the Chairman, but they are not elected by or

representative of the employees. That would apparently be far too dangerous and radical. Yet it is being done elsewhere and it should be tried in this country.
If we had a Government who were prepared to attempt to introduce greater democracy and a greater feeling of participation and direct consultation within each large unit of industry and within each work place, we would see a new phase of policy and the country would be prepared to draw back from the extremes into which it is being polarised. There would be an opportunity for a sound and fair economic policy. It is fairness which is at present lacking from both the industrial and economic policies of the Government.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I do not wish to take up all the arguments that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has put forward because to some extent he has over-emphasised the polarisation which has taken place in recent weeks. Inevitably, commentators in the Press and elsewhere have tended to paint the picture of the last week in much more violent colours than the facts of the situation warrant. There is not the savage polarisation which commentators in the Press wrote about this weekend.
I add my support to the Jones/Aldington proposals which are the best way of settling the docks dispute. One of the very hopeful signs is the widespread support for the proposals in the House, and it is agreeable to find such a bilateral approach to the issue. I cannot remember it on any other major industrial dispute. I hope therefore that the delegates will be called back into conference later this week or very early next week, that some shuffling of the proposals will take place which will not alter them in substance but in presentation, making people aware that the job security which is so important is written into them. I hope there will be very few abstentions and a majority in favour of accepting the proposals and a return to work.
I believe that when that happens we shall see unofficial action in some ports because this has happened throughout


the history of the dock industry. Too often decisions made by the delegate conference have not been accepted by certain elements among the workforce. Therefore, although I hope it will not happen, unofficial action will probably take place. It will be a long time before the industry is rid of the seeds of distrust which have led in the pas to a refusal by people to accept the decisions of their own representatives meeting in conference.
This debate largely centres upon the Industrial Relations Act. The TUC, with the Labour Party firmly on its coat-tails on this issue, has been demanding the total repeal of the Act in an emotional and somewhat immoderate fashion since it came on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And before.

Mr. Hayhoe: One cannot ask for the repeal of an Act before it becomes an Act. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who is so competent at interjecting from a sitting position, could do it because his mind works in a curious way. But most of us—

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Hayhoe: Let me finish my sentence. The only way in which a demand for the repeal of an Act can make sense is to demand the repeal when the Act is on the Statute Book.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: Let us not get involved with semantic points. No doubt the hon. Member, who detains the House longer than most—

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Hayhoe: I shall not give way to the hon. Member but I will give way to someone who takes up less of the time of the House than he does. The demand by the TUC and the Labour Party for the repeal of the Act is based upon the fallacy that if they demand long enough it will be repealed. I remember only too well in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr.

Scott) asked the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) how the pledge that she was giving that a future Labour Government would repeal the Industrial Relations Act differed in content and strength from the pledge which had been given by Labour spokesmen that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, would be repealed. No answer was forthcoming and in exchanges last week a similar question was being put to the Leader of the Opposition, and again he failed to answer it.
My judgment is that the Act will never be repealed even if there is a change of Government. I believe that it will be amended. The Opposition's case, as I understand it, is that the Industrial Relations Act is either responsible for creating or at least for intensifying most of our present industrial troubles. One of the arguments used by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) this afternoon, which has been used many times before as a measure of the problem, is the enormous number of working days which have been lost because of industrial disputes this year. The latest figures up to the end of May show that about 14 million days have been lost, and it is claimed by the Opposition that the Act is responsible.
I reject that view entirely because there is no justification for it. Over 10 million of those working days lost were lost within the mining industry as a result of the coalmining strike. It is absolutely certain that the Act had no effect one way or the other on that strike. Most of its major provisions did not come into effect until the strike was over. The report of the court of inquiry which recommended the final award to the miners gives the cause of the strike. The miners were striking because, to quote from the report—
During the period 1965 to 1970 … the pay of the miner fell from near the top rank to a level in the middle of the structure.
The miners were striking to get back their high position in the pay scale among the manual workers, a position which had been eroded not during the years 1970–71, not while the present Government were in power, hut, according to the Wilberforce Report, a position which had been taken from them during 1965–70, the time when the Labour Government were in office. Whoever or whatever is to blame,


it cannot be the Industrial Relations Act. It might well be the way in which the then leaders of the Coal Board, backed by a Labour Government, conned the miners into accepting a gradual degradation of their position.

Mr. Molloy: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is partly true, that the Government were doing very well in creating industrial unrest without the Industrial Relations Act. We had the miners' strike, the Post Office workers' strike, and the electrical workers' strike, and in all these disputes the Government intervened behind the scenes and caused obstruction. They were doing very well. We have had more industrial strife and unemployment since they took office. What the Act has done is to help them on that disastrous road.

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman says that the Industrial Relations Act is not the cause of the trouble, though that was the case deployed by his right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North from his Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman says that the record of industrial strife has been worse under the present Government than it was before, but judged by the number of industrial disputes, as Donovan and "In Place of Strife" judged it, industrial unrest is down by 50 per cent. this year compared with the figures two years ago. In the first five months of 1970 there were over 1,900 strikes and in the first five months of this year there were about 900. There has been a considerable improvement on that score, and it is wrong to argue that the Act is responsible for the large number of working days that have been lost.

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) was right. It was never part of my argument to suggest that the Act had caused the extra time lost. The Government's confrontation policy has caused that. The Act is the latest chapter in that, and will make the situation even worse. That was my case.

Mr. Hayhoe: That argument at least could be pursued and could be linked with the figures. The argument that the Act is wholly to blame is totally absurd, but the right hon. Gentleman said earlier today that it was the Act that caused the

dock strike. I noted his words at the time. I do not believe that statement to be true. He is now taking a more reasonable position, and saying that many other factors were involved. I hope that he accepts his own responsibility as a member of the Government during the time when the miners' position was eroded so badly that they reached the stage of feeling tremendous frustration at being pushed down the wages scale, frustration which burst out into the strike earlier this year. Responsibility for that rests heavily on the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
In the rail strike the Act was operative and was successful in protecting the community. My constituents are grateful for the fact that there was not an extended strike causing them great inconvenience. We had the cooling-off period and the ballot and then a result without a long strike.
People ask, "Why have a ballot?". "In Place of Strife" stated that the object of a ballot would be not to place a prohibition on the strike but to help to ensure that before important strikes took place the union members themselves were convinced that they were right to go on strike. What the Government did in using the provisions of the Act to call for a compulsory ballot was precisely what the Labour Government said was the object when they introduced proposals for strike ballots in "In Place of Strife".
I believe that amendments will be made to the Act. Here I return to the speech made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I have much sympathy for the proposal made in The Guardian that there should be some sort of filter to prevent vexatious actions from going to the Industrial Relations Court. There is substance in that, and I hope the Government will examine it. Equally, there is a great deal to be said for examining the possibility of removing from the Court the power to send individuals to gaol for contempt of its orders. I believe that the five dockers wanted to go to gaol, and the last thing in the world I should have done was to give them what they wanted. I should have found some other sanction. [Interruption.] There is nothing in the Act about that. The remedies for contempt have nothing to do with the Act.

Mr. Raymond Gower: While I greatly respect my hon. Friend's observations on these matters, I hope he appreciates that what he is suggesting is somewhat inconsistent with the whole basis of our law, that if one deliberately disregards the findings of any court in this country, one is asking to be committed for contempt. It is unreasonable to suggest that that contempt is in any way connected with the Act, which was carefully worded to avoid committal to prison.

Mr. Hayhoe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about there being nothing in the Act about contempt. Where we might disagree is on whether it is always necessary for the court to have power to commit people who disobey its orders. For example, we have moved from a position where people who disobeyed orders on civil debts were sent to prison.
The Government should carefully examine these matters. I believe that they are the sort of things my right hon. Friend is prepared to look at, after giving a fair trial to the legislation, when we come to the possibility of amendments being made.

5.29 p.m.

Mrs. W. E. Garrett: It is not very often that I catch the eye of the Chair on a subject such as we are debating.
I normally listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe), because I believe he is one of the few Conservative Members who have made any attempt to study the trade union movement, but I did not agree with many of his points this afternoon.
I am one of the fast dwindling band of hon. Members who have been shop stewards. I was a shop steward for 20 years, and represented my union at local, district and national level. I have also been an officer of the 116 trade union sponsored Members on this side. During this period of office of eight years, I have watched somewhat askance the manoeuvres of both the present and the previous Governments. I well remember as an officer meeting the former Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, and his Principal Secretary. They too completely ignored the advice that we gave them to the effect that industrial legislation should not be introduced.

This advice was based on years of experience. I regret that the present Government moved so fast in 1970 to get this infamous Act on to the Statute Book. In this Chamber we have all contributed in our own little way more to do harm to industrial relations than to do good.
The Secretary of State in his usual uneventful manner made two comments with which I would agree. The first was that there are millions of trade unionists working productively, efficiently, happily and in complete accord with management on day-to-day matters. He made the plea that we should bear this in mind. I wish that we had borne it in mind over the years.
The other remark he made was that there should be a general desire to calm down. In this highly volatile area of human behaviour it is important that we all try to keep a sensible and level head. I am not an expert on the docks. I know nothing at all about the industry, but my subconscious instincts tell me that the dockers have a case. I know that their case as presented by the popular Press is not a popular one. I know that it suits the Press to give the impression to other working people that they are a highly-paid, irresponsible and truculent crowd. Again my instinct tells me that there is something wrong, that something must be rectified.
The regrettable thing is that the workers of this country sometimes make rotten remarks about the dockers without understanding that it suits the Press and certainly suits the Tory Party and some hon. Members opposite that one set of workers should be played off against the other so that the rest of society can get on with the business of making money.
The issue here is law and order and the Industrial Relations Act. I am rather sickened and wearied by the statements by the Prime Minister and his lieutenants that they were given a mandate for this. In the wide sense it could be said that they were, but taken in the present structure of our voting system that is not exactly correct. I should like to give some figures to show that it is not true that the Government were given such a mandate. In the 1970 General Election they received 13,144,692 votes. The Labour Party collected 12,179,196 votes and other parties, the Liberals, the Welsh


Nationalists, Scottish Nationalists, Communists and, for want of a term, the "fringes", received a further 3 million votes between them. Putting them together, this is a case of a minority for the Government. Add them up and we find that Labour and Liberals and others got between them over 2 million votes more than the Conservatives. It is not correct to say that the Government had a mandate from the people.

Mr. David Waddington: Is the hon. Member aware that the Labour Government between 1945 and 1950 had, on that argument, no mandate for nationalising a single industry in the country, because they had a minority of the total votes cast?

Mr. Garrett: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been following my line of thinking because I was about to say that this is generally accepted as so, that the voting system does throw up the anomaly of a minority party. In the 1945–50 period it was phenomenal insofar as there was a vast rejection of the then Conservative or Coalition Government.
We have to return to some degree of normality. We have to consult some of the other large-scale employers who say that they have no need of the Industrial Relations Act, who have operated over many years a system of joint consultation which has worked to the limit. Admittedly in this democracy of ours things sometimes break down and sometimes there are harmful strikes, but at the end of the day without any interference from anyone in this House, people normally sit around the table and resolve the matter. We have to get, slowly but surely, back to this system.
It is difficult for many hon. Members to realise the thinking of the ordinary trade unionist. First of all, it is a myth to think that they are all political activists. Most are not members of the Labour Party; very few are members of the Communist Party. Their whole philosophy of life centres around where they work, how much they can earn in the shortest possible time in that place and what their long-term and fringe benefits are likely to be.
We have to remember that shop stewards now are the typical good product of our educational system. We have made them more articulate, we have

made them so that they have an understanding of the world, which generally makes them cynical towards politics and politicians. By and large, they are able to talk the same language as the local manager, able to understand the economics of the company or organisation in which they are working, whether private or nationalised. Their whole objective is to get the maximum amount, through collective bargaining, for themselves and their fellow-workers.
If we would only leave these people to get on with the job I am sure that we would be doing the nation a favour. We have also to convince these people that we are not two nations. It is the job of the Government not so much of the Opposition to convince them that there are not too many greedy developers or speculators, that it is not a villainous act to ask for £20 a week for farm workers, that it is legitimate for construction workers to ask for £25 a week, hearing in mind the profits made by large companies.
I appeal for this degree of reasoning. If this debate can convince the nation that we are not in this business merely to inflame a situation, then it will have been a useful one. I hope that this will be the last debate on this subject and that we will let the people who know the business get on with it so that this House can bother itself about other important matters. I understand that the Solicitor-General is to reply to the debate. That is rather regrettable, although if he had been in his place during my speech he would not have comprehended what I have been trying to say. The Under-Secretary will have done so because he has tried to get a grasp of the situation since he became a Minister and, indeed, when he was "shadowing". There it is; we cannot have everything in life. If I have convinced the Under-Secretary I am content.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: It is easy for some of us to imagine that there is an invisible sounding board down the middle of the Chamber and for those of us on either side of the House to obtain echoes from that sounding board. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), in a characteristically modest and sane speech, has


drawn echoes from both sides of the Chamber.If we could do that a little more often then the low respect into which this House has unfortunately fallen might be improved.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman goes to Strasbourg.

Mr. Lloyd: Whether or not one is here or in Strasbourg representing this House, after the debate on Monday, the observations made to me by many people, not least some of those listening to our proceedings in the Gallery, hardly reflected favourably on the House, and the hon. Gentleman must bear his 630th share of responsibility for our reputation.
I must declare two interests. First, I have a connection with a major shipping group which has dock interests. The second interest is perhaps more fundamental. I imagine that in my constituency there are not more than 200 or 300 dockers, because the commercial docks in Portsmouth are not significant or large. They employ, at most, several hundred men. Possibly 200 or 300 of them live in my constituency. I speak for them. But I also speak for the other 114,000 electors in my constituency.
We must bear in mind that the public interest is wider than the interests which have been represented as coming from the docker community, important though they may be, and plainly they should not be neglected by any humane or sensible society. But that part of the public interest is not, in my view, represented by Mr. Victor Feather when he says that the public interest is confined exclusively to members of trade unions.
I wish to declare a certain elemental responsibility for the situation in which the country finds itself. Perhaps more than many other people I was responsible for the introduction of the container revolution. The House may be interested in this circumstance. In 1959, I was one of the first people—I happen to know because they told me so—who saw on the West Coast of the United States one of the world's first major maritime container operations. Shortly afterwards I visited the East Coast and saw the sea-land operation carried out between Port Newark and Puerto Rico.
It is relevant to the problems of today and the situation in which we find our-

selves to ask, and to attempt to answer, why that revolution started. It started because two individuals, for two totally different reasons, looking at their shipping operations off the East and West Coasts of the United States, decided that things could not go on as they were. One was an investment analyst looking at the requirements of capital investment on the West Coast who said that the point at which capital must be invested was in cargo handling. The other was what is known in the United States as a "trucker"—a self-made man of great enterprise and energy who, watching his trucks being delayed day after day at Port Newark docks, said, "I must find a way of lifting the truck body off the back of my trucks and putting it straight on the ship". Against the hostility and scepticism of the whole maritime industry of the United States, he bought and converted five C-3's. He designed them so that the body could be lifted straight into the ship.
That started the container revolution, roughly in 1958 or 1959. I was very impressed, and I reported my findings widely in the United Kingdom. In 1960 I returned to the United States and by then the scale of the operations had doubled—virtually in a year. I reported those findings. By 1962, when I again returned, they had virtually doubled again, and I reported those findings. In 1961, a conference took place on board the "Wellington", just up river from this House, at which those findings were widely reported to the maritime interests and to anyone who wished to attend. In 1962, the International Cargo Handling Association held an international conference in London at which the impact of the container revolution was made clear.
I must take issue in one respect with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who said on Friday:
Containerisation has been a problem which was anticipated by our predecessors in government and ourselves. What was not anticipated by anyone, including the unions all the experts, was the pace at which these changes would take place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 2234.]
That just is not so. It was anticipated by a considerable number of experts but no notice was taken of their predictions and findings.
That was not the first, and probably it will not be the last, time that that has happened. I gave evidence to the Rochdale Committee in 1963 and I warned of the pace, character and extent of this revolution in maritime shipping. But that Committee paid very little attention to it in its final report. In 1962 I reported my findings to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who was then the Minister of Transport. Once again, the warning was explicit and clear. I asked Mr. Tim O'Leary to have lunch with me, which he did. I told him of my findings because I thought it right that the members of the trade union most concerned should be informed at the highest level. Let us not pretend therefore that at least some people were not told what was happening. All those who attended the conference on the "Wellington"—there were about 120 of them—must have known what would happen in this country when this major technological change hit our ports.
Why did this cargo handling revolution take place? First, quite simply and fundamentally, it was because the existing methods were archaic. They were used in principle by the Phoenicians; they had been used for 2,000 years. Secondly, the port industry throughout the Western developed world had been afflicted by continual and endless strikes, and those concerned with the primary responsibility of moving trade through our ports felt that something urgent must be done. Thirdly, restrictive practices of all kinds, not only in this country but throughout the maritime world, clearly and powerfully inhibited evolutionary change in the industry. Finally, inflation, which was by then endemic throughout the Western world, hit transport costs, particularly in the docks.
All those reasons applied to the United Kingdom, but there were other factors. By this time the container revolution was sweeping the world. Had not we followed suit, as we began to do on a considerable scale in 1963 and 1964, the United States maritime interests would have swept the oceans and driven us off the high seas. It was therefore imperative that we should act quickly. Also, it was perfectly clear to anyone who visited the major ports of the Continent that the Continent was moving ahead on a very large scale.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has left one factor out of the reasons he has given for the introduction of containerisation. Even if all the other factors had not been present, we would still have had containerisation because it was the one way of making greater profits.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in his statement although I probably would not draw the same conclusions from it. The maritime interests had been earning very depressed profits. The Rochdale Committee pointed this out in its report. Not one of our major ports had earned a return on capital for years. The shipping companies had made correspondingly low returns on capital for a long time. There was therefore no reason why they should not attempt to increase their profits. The hon. Member is right in saying that this was a factor, but it was by no means the only factor.
We have a unique situation in our docks. We have an organisation known as the National Dock Labour Board, which was established by statute. It is hardly surprising that there should be such an organisation in existence when we think that there have been nine separate major reports on the industry since 1951. Under the auspices of this statutory organisation, one group in the community enjoys what is undoubtedly an exceptional guarantee both of income and of employment. That the National Dock Labour Board is now a complete anachronism is beyond doubt. The unit load-bulk carriage—container revolution has taken place.
This, above all, required good management-employee relations. Yet, under the Board, the possibility of creating sensible relationships between employer and employee has been destroyed. The National Dock Labour Board engages and maintains the register and disciplines the men, the employer pays, and that is the extent of the nexus of the relationship between them.

Mr. Frank Marsden: In my constituency there are seven miles of dockland now at a complete standstill; nothing is going forward, backward or sideways. Is the hon. Gentleman inferring that containerisation is responsible for that?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I am not saying that containerisation is responsible for that. What I am saying is that containerisation has certainly contributed to the sense of unease in the national port industry as a whole. It would be surprising had it not done so.
Far more important and more fundamental to the situation in which we find ourselves is the influence of the National Dock Labour Board throughout the years. I believe this influence not to have been a constructive influence. That is why I shall come in a moment to the Aldington-Jones Committee, and on this my point of view may not coincide with that of the Opposition. I will say why and I will put my argument clearly before the House.
The board's composition as it now exists gives employees a virtual veto on any development which does not have immediate short-run advantages which the labour members of that board can represent to those who support them as being in their interests. Long-run schemes of any kind just do not get off the ground. So we have created and developed what is undoubtedly in economic terms and possibly in social terms a privileged caste virtually immune from economic change, virtually immune in certain important respects from financial hardship and virtually immune from management control. How this can be regarded as a sensible structure within which to go forward in this difficult situation I find hard to imagine. The board has failed to achieve its statutory objectives, and that is a serious failure for a statutory organisation.
The board was set up to ensure that an adequate number of dockers were available for dock work. Instead, virtually a 12 per cent. surplus is being carried by existing employers in the industry, plus those on the temporary unattached register. The board was set up to achieve full and proper utilisation of dock labour and a rapid and economic turn around of ships. No hon. Member in the House can seriously claim that this has been achieved. The board was set up to achieve the speedy transit of goods, yet our entrepôt trade is being lost on a significant and disquieting scale to continental ports precisely because the rapid transit of goods is not taking place.
Certainly, the board has proceeded along the road of decasualisation in a significant way. No one would doubt that that is a significant achievement, but at the moment the ratio of disguised unemployment, both within the employing groups and on the temporary unattached register, to effectively employed workers has increased steadily, and I do not regard this as an achievement of the National Dock Board.
In addition, the financial burden on the surviving employers has been heavy and damaging and under the proposals now before the House will become more so. I need hardly say that the burden on the community is indicated by the fact that within the last 10 months about £15 million has been paid out in compensation. That has been paid out by the community. It is a burden which is spread over society as a whole, and there is no point in burking that issue.
No wonder the Road Haulage Association has described the Act as "rigid and anomalous"—a description with which I entirely agree. The recommendations of the RHA are important. The association says:
That there should be no extension to any location or activity not specifically involved in making the transfer of cargo between ship or barge and shore.
I entirely agree. The RHA says that registered employers should recover their right to engage, suspend or terminate employment of their own workers. In describing the conditions which should be achieved the RHA says that the dock workers, like others, should be brought within the ambit of the redundancy payments scheme, outside which they lie at the moment and within the ambit of the unfair dismissals procedure of the Industrial Relations Act. With that recommendation I entirely agree.
Now we come to Aldington-Jones, the last of the nine Committees which has considered this industry. The report does nothing to tackle weaknesses of the National Dock Labour Board. It greatly enhances the privileges of the docker community. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may take the political view that this should be done, but that it is a fact is indisputable. It creates a permanent unattached register instead of a temporary unattached register. Hon. Gentlemen


opposite may say that that is a special condition which must be created in this special industry, but that it is being created and that it will create a precedent of an unfortunate kind I believe to be indisputable. It will, therefore, increase surplus labour by from 10 to 15 per cent. and it will impose an immense financial burden, even if the Government pay a considerable part of it, first on dock employees and secondly on the community as a whole.
I mentioned the question of precedents. What claim would the TSR2 workers have had in a similar situation had they found that some years later dockers were to be paid £4,000 for the loss of their jobs? In certain circumstances what claim would the Concorde workers have if—as I hope will not be the case—the Concorde production line had to be closed down within a year or two?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why go all the way to the Concorde? Let us stick here in Westminster. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are paying £8.50 per day tax free to every Lord, his heirs and successors in perpetuity for as long as they may live, for putting his nose inside another place? Let him pay that to the dockers. The dockers would be quite happy. It is one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Mr. Lloyd: I know the hon. Gentleman's views on our judges, and I do not want to argue about that—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Not the judges, the Lords.

Mr. Lloyd: Whatever it may be, the Lords who do nothing or the judges who do a great deal, it is irrelevant to the total size and magnitude of the economic life of the dock community.
The next question is: will Aldington-Jones work? That is the fundamental question we should ask ourselves. First, will the dockers accept a capital sum, even of this size, if it is less than the discounted cash flow of the guaranteed income which they are likely to achieve and are capable under Aldington-Jones of achieving? My impression is that they will not accept it. Whether or not that is right, it seems to me that Aldington-Jones is beyond the bounds of practicality. Secondly, will the option be exercised by old or young dockers? The way

I would react if I were in a docker's shoes would be not to exercise the option.
I therefore wholly endorse the final conclusion of the memorandum of the Road Haulage Association—and I have no connection whatever with that Association:
We firmly believe that there is no satisfactory alternative to the revision of the deck labour scheme.
I would add a word to that. I would say the total revision of the dock labour scheme, and the time for that is now. The RHA goes on to say:
Any supposed solution by extension of the scheme—by restrictions on the operation of others or by the imposition of unnecessary surcharges—would eriously inhibit the development of the transport industry as a whole, would be injurious to the country's competitive trading position and adversely affect the interests of other transport employees.
It seems to me that Aldington-Jones is attempting to do the impossible. The Committee states in its introduction that it is resolved to remove the prime cause of insecurity. But no organisation, no committee, no Government, can remove the prime cause of uncertainty. They could perhaps under two conditions; by creating a completely static and isolated community, which for a trading community such as the United Kingdom is virtually impossible; or, secondly, by spreading the consequences of risk and technological change by an insurance process. All that any committee or any other organisation can do is to insure the community against the consequences of technological change. For the Aldington-Jones Committee to say that it can remove the prime cause of insecurity is to suggest to the House and to the country that the members of the committee are magicians of an altogether new economic kind, and I do not believe that they are. The danger is that if the burdens of change are too great we shall bring change to a grinding halt. That is what I fear is most likely to happen if the precedents created by this type of proposal are allowed to spread.
The Aldington-Jones Report has not faced the question of how new opportunities for dock workers can be created. This perhaps is the most fundamental point of all. The House may well ask, "If not the National Dock Labour Board or Aldington-Jones, then what?" My answer is simple. I believe that we have


no long-term alternative but to bring dockers within the general industrial law of the country. If that law is inadequate, it must be made good. That is the only real option we face.
Secondly, burdens of change should not be recovered by taxing employment, as the Aldington-Jones Report suggests. It is of great interest to realise that the United States, which last year had a 135-day dock strike on this very issue, finally resolved the matter in a comprehensive and interesting agreement which placed the burden of change on the container itself by putting a royalty on containers moving across the United States. I do not regard this as an ideal solution, but what is not an ideal solution is to place the burden of tax on those employing the men in the docks, knowing full well that the employment of men in the docks is undergoing a fundamental challenge in terms of the technological revolution. We shall be taxing a shrinking base, and the more it is taxed the more easily it will collapse. On that score I would argue that the proposals will not work.
We are fast approaching the position where we are neglecting the non-registered men in our society. Irrational pressure produces an equally irrational response—the registration or creation of special privileges. This becomes part of the conventional scene, and wisdom and vested interest is built up. The non-registered, whether or not they are trade unionists, become un-persons. Their interests always come second; they become second-class citizens with residual economic privileges. The economic equivalent of the Copernican revolution has taken place, but our economic life is still dominated by flat-earthers.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Government have learned half the lesson—but only half. Precisely as we warned, the arrest of the first dockers under the Industrial Relations Act lead to a national strike. If they had not been freed, 10 million trade unionists would have gone on strike yesterday. The Government will never again arrest trade unionists under that Act.
But the trade unions have not yet won. For the £55,000 fine on the Transport and General Workers' Union is being

insisted upon. The second half of the lesson which the Government have yet to learn is that to make trade unions or their leaders responsible for the actions of shop stewards or individual members and to inflict penalties for them is equally intolerable to the workers of this country. It could destroy the unions.
The dockers are now on strike to defend their security of employment; but if they had not been on strike on this account, I believe they would have been on strike on account of this unfair attack on their union and their union leaders. The Government should be warned: if they persist in fining unions, the occasion will arise when a strike will take place. And, once again, the whole trade union movement will support it, whatever the Industrial Relations Act says.
I do not accept the view that all laws have to be carried out in all circumstances. We all remember the outstanding former leader of the Labour Party, who in his day was one of the great men of the House of Commons, the late George Lansbury. In 1924 he and other Poplar councillors went to Brixton Gaol because they refused to obey the law. They were released after six weeks because of the mass pressure of the people of London. They were rightly regarded by millions of working people as heroes. As a result of their actions the burden of maintaining the unemployed in the poor parts of London, which had previously been borne by the poor parts of London, was shared by the whole community and has remained so ever since. The wealthy had to contribute to the upkeep of the unemployed. That was the issue, and Lansbury was right. By going to gaol he did more than anything else to change the situation. I doubt whether even hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that Lansbury was wrong, morally or otherwise, in disobeying the law, which he certainly did.
There is a close parallel between the Industrial Relations Act and the Housing Finance Act. In the first case, union leaders are being threatened by law for failure to impose new and intolerable conditions and penalties on the shop stewards and members. In the second case councillors are being threatened by law for refusing to impose rent increases on their tenants, increases which are not


necessitated by the state of their housing revenue account. In both cases the action is repugnant to the consciences of the trade unionists on the one hand, and the councillors on the other hand.
In many cases they will refuse to implement the legislation. There are staid aldermen—normally extremely law-abiding citizens, councillors of great cities such as Glasgow and Birmingham—who are telling the Minister that they do not intend to operate the Act. They are threatening to break the law. And let us make no mistake about it, many councils will break the law. I do not know how many will do so, but this is what will certainly happen. In the last few days in the North-West alone, in Salford, Bolton, Stockport and Barrow, the same decision has been reached. Furthermore, the TUC Economic Committee—this news has been reported in only two newspapers—has unanimously resolved to support local authorities which refuse to implement the legislation.
When I mentioned this fact during the last stage of the Housing Finance Bill in this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in an unusual way cried. "Shame". The shame was on him. He was failing to realise that one cannot enforce political laws which are unacceptable to millions of people, imposing heavy penalties on men for refusing to become instruments of those laws, and then expect compliance.
Again, to continue this parallel, last month I was speaking in Nelson and Colne in North-East Lancashire on the Housing Finance Bill. The meeting carried a resolution, with only one dissentient, that their council should be urged not to implement the Bill. The one dissentient argued that laws, however bad, have to be carried out. He was asked, "But supposing the Bill insisted on councillors imposing, not £1 a week increase in rents this October, but £10 a week—would you still agree to that?" After a pause, the dissentient replied, "Well, that is only a hypothetical case." It was pointed out to him that the warrants for the arrest of the three dockers in the first dock case last month were anything but hypothetical. The summonses had been issued and 40,000 dockers had immediately gone on strike. Moreover, almost every trade unionist in the country worthy of the name backed them. Pro-

vided that they are non-violent, people are sometimes morally justified in refusing to obey the law.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to a meeting that he attended in Nelson and Colne, and I am grateful to him for having done so because it explains a lot to me. It is no doubt the explanation for a story which appeared in the local paper the other day that council tenants in Nelson and Colne opposed the Housing Finance Act. However, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that only one council tenant in the whole of Nelson and the whole of Colne has objected to me about that Act.

Mr. Allaun: That casts something of a reflection on the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). If he thinks that only one council tenant in Nelson and Colne disagrees with the Act, he has another think coming.

Mr. Waddington: I did not say that. My point was that there had been no protest.

Mr. Allaun: This is a most important philosophical issue, but, because of shortness of time, I do not intend to make a meal of it. However, I want to put this question to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. What would happen if this Government instructed sincere Protestants, Catholics or Jews to go against their tenets? If those people were sincere, they would refuse, and I believe that they would do so in very large numbers. Many trade unionists hold their faith as strongly as many religious people hold their views, and they should be similarly respected. A law which tries to put them in this position is an intolerable law, and I do not blame people for going on strike against it.
In our democracy the Government have failed, and will continue to fail, to prevent strikes by law, law courts, imprisonment, fines, or seizure of union funds. Of course, it is possible to stop strikes, but only at the price of stopping democracy. It is possible to stop strikes in Fascist countries. In Hitler Germany and Fascist Italy strikes were stopped. In Fascist Spain and in Fascist Greece nearly all strikes have been stopped. It is possible to stop strikes in a workers'


dictatorship. But we are not talking about a workers' dictatorship. This is not a workers' dictatorship. It is democracy, it cannot be done.
Strikes are a nuisance. They are inconvenient. They cause trouble. They cause loss of profits to people like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) and his friends. Often they are annoying to the public and to fellow trade unionists who are affected indirectly. But they are the price that we must pay for democracy. If we interfere with the unions we interfere with democracy itself.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: My hon. Friend has touched on a very important point. However, he might be thoroughly misunderstood. Strikes have often had the effect of shaking up lousy management. Often strikes lead to inquiries and to penetrating in analyses which result ultimately in greater productivity and the more efficient use of capital and labour. Many strikes have been a stimulus to progress over the years.

Mr. Allaun: My hon. Friend is quite right. Speaking from personal experience I can think of two strikes in which I was a humble participant and which had the effect to which my hon. Friend has referred.
If the Government want to reduce the number of strikes they have to convince workers that they are genuinely trying to improve living conditions. This Government have moved in the opposite direction. They have given up consensus politics in favour of confrontation. They have bashed trade unions, tenants, unemployed and immigrants. However, I believe that they will be forced into returning to consensus politics. In fact it is happening. But in one sense it is too late. They have sown the wind and they will reap the whirlwind. Trade unionists have been so antagonised that they are no longer prepared to deal with the Government as reasonably as they would have if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had not engaged in this rôle.
As I said at Question Time, Members of Parliament found this morning that no copies of HANSARD were available. There were no Order Papers and no other publications coming from the hands of the printers at Her Majesty's Stationery

Office. This is another example of the inconvenience caused by strikes. However, the printers were not on strike to improve their own conditions. They were on strike because they were so angered by the Industrial Relations Act.
Workers do not go on strike for fun, whatever the Daily Mirror may have to say. In fact that newspaper is one of the worst union bashers of the lot, having been engaged in it ever since the day the war ended in 1945. I think that it is because it cannot handle its own trade union members. Workers do not go on strike for fun or because agitators tell them to—

Mr. John Page: Nonsense.

Mr. Allaun: Possibly the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has not the experience of trade unionism that he professes to have. I doubt whether he has ever worked in industry in his life—

Mr. Page: I have been working solidly in manufacturing industry for the last 25 years. I think that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Allaun: I meant that the hon. Gentleman had not worked at the receiving end of industry—

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman did not say that. Anyhow, I have.

Mr. Allaun: Very well. Workers do not strike for frivolous reasons. They do it because they know what solidarity means. They know that if one section of workers can be hurt without resistance, one day they too will be made to suffer.
Let me give an example which is imbedded in my mind. The hon. Member for Harrow, West, has told us on numerous occasions that he has a major interest in a shipping company. I have a major interest at the receiving end. I represent the third biggest area of dockland in the country. It handles more tonnage than any other port in the country outside London and Liverpool. One incident is imprinted on my mind. About 20 years ago I was the Northern Industrial Correspondent for the Daily Herald. I covered a dock strike at Salford. It was an unofficial strike.


Every day for five weeks I went along to a croft outside the docks at Trafford Road where I saw 3,000 hands go up in favour of staying on strike. Incidentally, the number today is 1,100, not 3,000, thanks to mechanisation, containerisation and the rest.
What was the issue involved? They were not striking out of any interest of their own. Their wages, conditions and rights were not at stake. Those 3,000 dockers at Salford were on strike because. 40 miles away at Liverpool, three men had not been sacked but merely suspended. But those dockers had the instinct of solidarity which kept them out for five weeks. Their union, under Arthur Deakin, was against them. The Daily Herald was against them. Labour Party leaders were against them. I do not need to tell hon. Members that the Press was against them. In fact, the Press put their wives against them. For five weeks that strike was solid. This is solidarity which the Prime Minister and his colleagues cannot understand. They will never understand, however hard they try. The dockers may not be highly-educated men in the sense that they did not go to the sixth form or university, but they are highly educated in solidarity, which is one of the highest virtues. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Employment and the Solicitor-General will never understand, but they will have to accept it.
Few hon. Members opposite have been trade unionists and fewer still have personal experience of taking strike action. As for the Secretary of State for Employment, he knows less about industrial relations than any member of the general management committee of my Labour Party. I say that in all seriousness. The right hon. Gentleman is not fitted for the job.
Certain newspapers have tried to frighten us by saying that if this kind of thing goes on the Government will go to the country on the issue. I wish they would. Unfortunately they will not do so because they might lose. At the moment they are safe—they have a majority of over 30. By holding an election they would be on a hiding to nothing, and it would be a hiding. The Government are 13 points behind in the public opinion polls and unemployment

and prices are at an unacceptably high level. The Government know that they would lose, so there will be no election. However, they will find that though they have forced through the Industrial Relations Act and the Housing Finance Act, they will be unable to implement them. If they wish to avoid further humiliation they should repeal them now.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: This debate takes place in the context of happenings which must worry a lot of people across a wide range of political opinion. I recognise that there are dangers in over-emphasising our forebodings but there may be greater dangers if we do not voice our anxieties. The events which have led to the present strikes and other troubles have arisen from a concatenation of events in our history, not least the technological change to which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) referred. Our social and economic history has had its influence, but for many years it has appeared to our friends overseas that we have been committing economic suicide by self-inflicted wounds. Across the whole spectrum of our national life we have seen signs of selfishness and lack of self-discipline which we can ill afford.
Against that background I hope that the gap between the two parties is not as wide as some people would have us believe. There are many factors which should unite us rather than divide us. Surely the majority of the Labour Party support the rule of law, which means supporting the rule of law at all times and at all places. There can be no room for picking and choosing the parts of our law which we are prepared to obey. That should be the accepted doctrine of us all.
We who make the laws should be the first to consider that they should be obeyed. Of course, we will campaign vigorously in all parts of the House against laws with which we disagree; that is the nature of a politician. It would be unnatural if we did not do so, a negation of the philosophy of every hon. Member. However, there can be no proper relationship between attempts to change the law and attempts to set it aside. Likewise, nearly all of us want a fair deal for those employed in all


parts of industry at every level. I could not continue to support any party whose objectives were directed against one section of the community. The hon. Memfor Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said that we must be more like one nation. I profoundly agree with that view and acknowledge its wisdom. We are one nation in the sense that in the long term what injures the nation and the economy must injure us all.
It would be inappropriate to dwell on the merits or demerits of the Industrial Relations Act. Like all our legislation it obviously has its imperfections and faults. Like most Acts it is acceptable to some and unpalatable to others. However, whatever its qualities and whatever its faults, it is now an integral part of our law and subject to the possibility of repeal or revision. Accordingly it is difficult to credit the weekend statement of Mr. Victor Feather when he said:
But we do not accept that this Act is the law of the land.
That statement is reported in the newspapers. [Interruption.] Those were the words he used in an interview.

Mr. David Mitchell: Mr. Feather explained on television last night that the full phrase which he used was:
I do not regard this law as a law of the land in the same way as I regard other laws.
Whether that changes the situation is a matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) might like to consider.

Mr. Gower: In his initial statement Mr. Feather did not say that. He has now amended his statement. I believe that both statements are completely contrary to the rule of law. Whether Mr. Feather accepts it or not, the Act is a part of the law. A serious situation would arise if any of us were at liberty to select portions of the law which we chose to obey. If we did that, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and his colleague the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) would be driving on the right-hand side of the road and I and my Tory colleagues on the left-hand side.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Does the hon. Member recollect that it was not so long ago that we were hanging

Germans because they were not selective about which laws of the land they chose to obey?

Mr. Gower: I am dealing with our internal law—[Interruption.] I shall give another example. It would be serious if a wholesaler chose to say that he did not like the removal of resale price maintenance and introduced sanctions of the kind which have now been made illegal against a retailer. It would be the same kind of thing because he would be saying "I do not choose to follow this part of the law."
It must be obvious that there are those in this country who are not only opposed to the Industrial Relations Act but are prepared to go to all kinds of extremes to make it unenforceable. What should be the response of the Government in such circumstances? The Government's attitude in the traditional areas of industrial negotiation and bargaining should be reasonable and conciliatory. I see positive advantages for Ministers going out of their way to appreciate the reasonable anxieties of those who feel threatened by industrial and economic change. I hope that Ministers and all hon. Members will try to appreciate at all stages the reasonable anxieties of many people who are so threatened. At the same time the Government must make every effort to meet the legitimate criticism of those who point to defects and deficiencies of the Act, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) implied.
I hope that explanations of the Act will continue to be given and that such information will continue to be factual and unbiased. There must likewise be some obligation on the opponents of the Act to be unbiassed and not to distort. I agree with the leading article in the Sunday Times this week which reminded us that the Act was framed in such a manner as to avoid at all costs sending workers to prison.

Mr. Loughlin: How did they get there then?

Mr. Gower: No Minister in his right senses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—would want to send a worker to prison, but it must be emphasised that if any person seeks to go to prison for contempt of court and is determined to do so it is


extraordinarily difficult to stop him. That was the position under the old law —indeed, it is the position under practically every Act of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Northamption (Mr. Paget) knows perfectly well that under practically any law it is difficult to prevent a person who wishes to do so from going to prison.
I hope that Ministers will make every effort to remind the country that the trouble at the docks arose not from any Government initiative but from a dispute between groups of workers who are members of the same union. Several Press accounts and television and radio broadcasts which I have seen have ignored these factors or have played them down. One would imagine that the trouble had arisen from the initiative of Ministers. Indeed, from some of the speeches we have heard in the debate one would get the impression that the situation arises from a prosecution started at the behest of a Minister. The facts merit the utmost publicity and I hope that Ministers will ensure that they get it. They must do so if we are to hope for any fair appraisal of the facts by the public at large.
The case in which the five dockers were imprisoned for contempt could have arisen under the law as it existed before the passing of the Industrial Relations Act. There are several lawyers present who will indicate their agreement. The House might consider that in the container dispute, if complete success had attended the striking dockers, there would have been some loss of employment to other members of their own union. I ask Ministers to thunder out these matters more than they have been doing. There has been lack of communication here. No Government can submit to pressures which include the breaking or nonobservance of the law. That would be a fatal course. It would provoke the sort of chaos from which no future Government, including a Labour Government, could conceivably benefit. It would be utterly against the public interest.
On the other hand, it would be wrong for the Government to insist at all times that the Act is perfect and needs no amendment. Some amendment will surely be necessary, but this must follow mature consideration. The right hon. Member for Fast Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said that the Act should be amended now. I

do not believe that it can be done on that basis. The Act has to have mature consideration and there must be substantial experience of its working. There must at all costs be no yielding on the question of the rule of law. That is the very cornerstone of our kind of democracy and we could make a concession on it only at our extreme peril.

Mr. Bidwell: Was not the law in disarray at the time of the imprisonment of the dockers? Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the plea of the Official Solicitor before the NIRC—the hon. Gentleman must have had this in mind in formulating his speech—was that the dockers had been in prison too long? That plea was rejected by Sir John Donaldson on the ground that the judgment by the Law Lords had changed the situation. That was the reason given for the release of the men.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman is simply referring back to a point I dealt with earlier. I am now dealing with the question of the rule of law. I believe that these men were determined to go to prison. They wanted to appear to be martyrs. That was the sole purpose of the exercise. As I have said, I believe that under any Act of Parliament a person can go to prison for non-compliance with a court order—even, for example, in a case of the most trivial civil debt. One cannot prevent people from going to prison if they are determined to go there.

Mr. Paget: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out that I have a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. The more interruptions there are, the fewer speakers I can call.

Mr. Paget: My question is very brief, Mr. Speaker. I put it to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that even if putting the dockers in prison was a judicial act, no one can pretend that letting them out was a judicial act.

Mr. Gower: I want to refer to strikes in sympathy with those who are on strike in industrial troubles. Not unnaturally, members of the public generally feel a good deal of sympathy with those who are taking industrial action for reasons of sympathy. But we need to inquire just how much this sympathetic action is as


admirable as it may appear. For example, last week the newspaper workers seem to have paid small regard to the kind of employers they have or to the terrible damage they might do to their employers, whether those individual employers are good or bad. In the process of sympathetic action, it seems that a good employer fares no better than a bad one. That is the danger in sympathetic action. In such circumstances employers could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation. That is the perilous road which the newspaper industry in particular may be taking. I find it ominous that during the dispute the only newspaper which appeared was the Morning Star to inform the country about these issues. That is a peculiar commentary on the state of affairs.
I subscribe to the view of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) who said on 24th June:
The mere slogan of repeal will not be enough.
I agree also with the sage advice of the New Statesman on 23rd June, which said:
It is not enough for the Labour Party simply to give vein to ritual cries for the abolition of the Act.
The Act after all provides a framework on which we may gradually create a superstructure of practice when we have had experience of it. As my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary said when introducing the Measure last Session, the sanctions were never intended to be anything but a last resort. We do not believe in bashing the trade unions. We do not seek to weaken them. Indeed, we want them stronger, better and with greater resources. We want them to make the maximum contribution to the welfare of their members as well as to the welfare of the country.
At the annual conference of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union on 16th April, Mr. Feather said:
We"—
the unions—
are not only the representatives of the public interest, we are the public interest.
That is nonsense. It is a grossly excessive claim. No section however large is solely the public interest.
At this time in our history, Britain as never before needs the united efforts of all sections of the community. In this context. I reiterate what I said earlier. It may be said that only as one nation can we hope to succeed or, perhaps, fail. It is only as one nation that we can strive to sustain ourselves in this highly competitive world.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: A lot has been said about the obligation to obey the law and the problems arising out of the Industrial Relations Act in that context, and I wish to say a few words about that aspect before coming to what I regard as the central issue, namely, the question of the ports policy.
The Government claim that they are standing aside as workers fight among themselves for jobs, and they say that technology is coming along at such a rate that there is little they can do about it. In fact, there is a great deal that the Government can do, and I shall show in a minute or two that the problem we have today is the direct result of some of their actions or failure to take action.
At the outset it should be made clear that we on this side have not contended that the problems facing us are directly created by the Industrial Relations Act, although it is plain enough that the Act has given rise to many troubles and has denied a number of important rights which the trade unions have enjoyed for years. These things have not happened by accident. The rights now denied condition the right in many cases to continue the struggle to improve working conditions. The purpose behind the Act is to weaken the trade union movement. That was the sole purpose, as so many of us contended during the long hours we spent in fighting the Bill during its passage through the House.
However, whether it is right or wrong, we have to look at the consequences of the Act. One consequence is that there is even greater confrontation on the industrial scene now and far greater bitterness. We cannot ignore the fact that men went to gaol, whether for contempt of court or not. It is true that the law governing contempt of court existed before the Industrial Relations Act, but it


is equally true that employers never pursued workers through the courts. They felt that it was not worth pursuing issues of this kind through the courts, and I should have said that the events of the last few weeks have proved the rightness of that view.
On the other hand, we have seen proof of the conviction which many of us felt that the new Act would allow reactionary employers to enforce their will upon trade unionists who were contesting the desire of an employer to weaken their position. The Industrial Relations Act has been seen as available for that purpose, and it has been used.
We hear a lot about rights and obligations, but there is an awful lot to be said for the right to work, a fundamental right now denied to over 1 million people in our country. What is at issue in the docks now is the right to work, the right to decent wages and a fair standard of living. This is the crucial matter now.
It is said that men should obey the law. Anyone who has studied the history of the trade union movement knows that trade unions have constantly had to fight against the law and through the courts. This is plain from the judgments passed by various courts at different points in our history—under the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, for example. As in the recent docks case, the first court would find against the trade union, the appeal court would usually find for the union and then the reactionary House of Lords would always find against the trade union again, conditioning trade union law against the interests of the trade union movement and to the disadvantage of its members. That was so in earlier years, and reversed what was intended by Parliament in the 1906 Act.
I do not find it particularly astounding, therefore, that some law Lords who are considered to be impartial and objective come rather hurriedly to a decision against the trade unions and in the process create an apparent conflict in the law. This has often been so in trade union history.
I think that there can be justifications for breaking the law, but I shall not pursue that point now because I wish to direct attention to what I regard as the Government's abdication of responsibility in ducking behind the issue and saying

that the problem arises because of advancing technology in the industry and because worker is fighting worker. The Government could do a good deal to help but they have abdicated responsibility.
No one denies that technology has advanced. My industry, shipping, has seen a great deal of evidence of that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) is not in the Chamber at the moment, because he is interested in a shipping company which has made many of my union's members redundant by the efficiency policies which he thinks should be followed and has then employed foreign labour instead of United Kingdom nationals.
We cannot just stand aside and allow these trends to continue without regard for their consequences. It is not our job to accept them simply because management considers them to be the most efficient. It is the duty of trade unionists to condition technological change and to exercise their essential function of fighting for a decent wage and a good standard of living.
The problems within the docks have been developing over many years. I welcome the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) for more opportunities to debate these issues. I have tried to get it debated for a long time but, as any hon. Member who has tried to raise a matter in the House knows, there is never enough time because there is always more legislation to be discussed. So we drift on and debate the issue only when there is a crisis, when attitudes have hardened, when the lines are set and when there are demands for justice on both sides. But then, of course, it is extremely difficult to reach a solution.
No one need tell me about the transport revolution. I have seen enough of it in shipping, with the greater size of ships, the different ways of handling cargo, containerisation and other alternative forms of transport. All this has brought great changes not only for dockers but for bargemen, transport drivers and the rest. The whole industry is going through great changes in Britain now following on the process which began in America some time earlier.
It is to the great credit of the Labour Government that they recognised what was happening and set up the Devlin Commission to go into the docks problem. I do not believe that there is a docker who would deny that Lord Devlin went to the core of the problem, which he saw as the sense of insecurity, with workers having to fight one another to get a job. The casual labour system was a terrible sore which we had allowed to persist but had done nothing about. Lord Devlin promised one thing that really mattered. He said that if the dockers would accept his recommendations, if they would stop what they regarded as some of their necessary restrictive practices, they would be guaranteed full employment and a good wage. That was the cardinal agreement given to the dockers, but everyone now seems to be trying to backtrack on it, including the British Transport Docks Board in Hull.
All sorts of employers in the shipping industry and the docks are talking about a surplus of labour, wanting to create what is known as the temporarily unattached register, which is essentially the same as the old system before decasualisation which dock workers were promised would never come again.
If it is said that people must be prepared to adjust to change in their industry and that the dockers have not been willing to do so, I reply that the dock labour force has fallen in the last five years by over one-third. The problem is not just the advance of technology. It must be firmly understood that the real issue is insecurity.
The first recommendation of the Aldington-Jones Report correctly pointed to the question of decasualisation and the rise of the temporarily unattached register, a development peculiar to London and Hull, where there are over 1,650 men on that register. These men on the so-called temporarily unattached register are not drawing the £40 or £50 a week so often talked about. They are on the fall-back wage of £20 a week, and when stoppages come off that it is little different from unemployment money. Therefore, even though they are there for dock work and they might get it if more are wanted on one day, they are living on a wage considerably less than anything they would

enjoy as employed dock workers. What we are seeing is the recreation of a reserve pool of labour which the employer can draw from when he wants it and put off when he does not.
That is what is being rejected by the dockers today. They did not accept it before and they will not accept it now. If there is any move to go back on the Devlin agreement, the country will find that they will in no circumstances accept it. They will see it as a betrayal, and there will be constant problems with all its consequent disruptions.
What concerns me is the way the Government are ducking their responsibilities. Why has there been an increase in the TUR? This is not just a question of technology, of the use of containers, about which, we hear such a lot. One of the problems which the Jones-Aldington inquiry was asked to solve was the problem of the temporarily unattached register as well as the problem of containerisation.
What is happening now is not solely the result of action by politically-motivated men—I probably have more interest than most in saying that, remembering the 1966 seamens' strike—and it is not simply a fight between worker and worker. I react with some cynicism when I hear Tories talking about their concern for lorry drivers who might be put out of work if dockers continued their fight. There are lots of people put out of work in these circumstances, and I do not hear the same consideration expressed for them. The lorry drivers have a genuine problem, as I well know. I faced over 200 of them in Hull on Sunday, and I can tell the House that that was quite a contentious meeting to say the least. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and I met 50 lorry drivers in a Committee room upstairs the other day. We understand these problems.
It is no good trying to solve the problem by dealing with symptoms, by claiming that it is all a fight between worker and worker. That is to deny the cause. The cause is the ports policy as a whole and the market philosophy which underlies it—the market philosophy as opposed to a controlled rational policy. Some people may call it a Socialist policy against a capitalist policy. The Prime Minister said that we wanted a


rational solution to the problem. The market philosophy within the context of the ports system is not the rational solution we can expect. It certainly will not solve the problem.
I have attended two or three debates on this issue and this aspect has not been debated. When employers leave one area for another, whether it be Chobham Farm, the East Midlands or other areas, they do not go because of better conditions or the availability of more land they go because labour is cheaper and more controllable. It is the old issue of cheaper labour. In some areas they may pay the same wages, but the labour is more amenable to control.
When considering whether we should accept or reject the Aldington-Jones proposals, preference should be given to the dock worker. The dock worker uses his guarantee of the right to employment under the dock labour system. He is asked to give up that right which has been fought for and won over a very long time. That is a privilege not enjoyed by many workers. I should like to see it enjoyed by many other workers. We must solve the problem of the right to some form of work. Even the Aidington-Jones Committee will have to address itself to giving a more permanent guarantee in that regard.
The issue in my area concerns low wages and the problem is brought out by the ports policy. Consider the Chobham Farm and the East Midlands disputes. The traditional stevedoring shipping companies, which have been based on the ports for many years, have left their facilities on the docks to get outside the dock gates—in some cases to go only 100 yards away. The Government have some responsibility. The Labour Government set up the Bristow Committee to consider extending the definition of the dock work area for which people should be answerable. That committee made a recommendation that the dock work area should extend at least five miles. The Bristow Committee looked at the problem and made proposals, but the Government did not implement them. They chose to do nothing about the committee's recommendations. They hid behind the excuse "It is technology and worker fighting worker".
The port of Hull is unique in that it has the real problem of the developing un-

attached register pool. That is so with London for similar reasons. The employers are leaving the traditional dock area and going to other places. In London they tend to go to areas just outside the dock gates. This is happening to some extent in Hull. However, because Hull is based on an estuary, ships are bypassing the port of Hull and going down the estuary to the Trent and the Ouse.
Over 21 wharves have been built in the last two to three years in this area. Between 2 million and 3 million tons of traffic are going past the port of Hull. That traffic is the equivalent of £1½ million revenue to the port of Hull and is equivalent in tonnage to 500 jobs. This is equivalent to the number of men who are being put on the temporary unattached register. Therefore, when people talk to dockers about containerisation and not about the problem of what our ports policy should or will do in effecting changes to prevent that kind of development, and the dockers think that nothing will be done about it, they are not prepared to co-operate.
The Government's policy was stated in simple terms by the Minister for Transport Industries, who said:
The crucial test by which a port's future will he determined is the service it offers to shipowners and users. A shipowner is not nowadays tied to a particular port; he is, like a housewife, choosing the shop which gives the best value, free to go to the port which suits him best.
The Minister confirmed that in debate. That is the ultimate market philosophy. The Minister says that if it is cheaper to go to one of these wharves in the Humber estuary, it is justifiable to do so and this must be accepted.
What are the consequences of accepting that? First, the Minister says that it is competition. It costs 65p to unload a ton of grain in Hull. To unload a ton of grain at the wharves in the estuary costs 17p a ton. Why should there be that great difference? It is not because of wages. I divorce these costs from wages. I have separated them. For a 1,000-ton coaster to come into Hull the labour charge is £360. To go to one of the wharves would cost £50. Obviously on that basis it is both economic and profitable to do that.
I understand that it costs about £70,000 to build a wharf. I have some figures.


We give subsidies towards the building of a wharf. The subsidies come about indirectly. They come from the river board, which says "We must give something to build the bank". The local authorities say that it will bring jobs into the area, so they provide money. Therefore, a £70,000 wharf will cost the owners perhaps only £33,000. The employers pay a mere pittance to their workers who work in most unsafe conditions. Seamen have to swing on to and off the ships by rope because gangways cannot be put up to them. Farmers are applying to build wharves because it is profitable to do so. The cost to the community is that places like Hull will have to close down.
Lord Rochdale said that if we were to have a mdernised port system we must build container cranes and roll-on, roll-off berths. This is the modern era; we must have these facilities. It is always the very large ships which need these facilities. A simple lesson of economics not recognised by the Government is that if the bread and butter traffic goes down the river instead of going into the port of Hull, the port will have to increase its charges. The Government say that the ports must make a profit. If the port of Hull is continually losing its traffic, it must increase charges to make a profit—and its charges have increased by over 50 per cent. in 12 months to meet heavy interest charges of over £1 million this year on investment. Of course, all the time more traffic goes down the river to the wharves.
When I and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) have challenged the Government on this point, time and again the reply we get is: "It is profitable; it is efficient; it is the proper way; it is competition". One of the major docks in Hull has been closed because the traffic is going away. Hundreds of redundancies have been created. However, my concern is about redundancies not only among dockers but among train drivers who take the traffic all over the country, the bargemen who take a lot of traffic down the river and the lorry drivers who also carry a lot of traffic to different parts of the country from Hull.
We are dissipating our ports all over the region. That cannot be a sane and rational policy, apart from what it is doing to the port of Hull. The Government's policy is wrong, and we have called their attention to these problems time and again.
The Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries has called on the Government to revise their 15 per cent. return requirement on capital for the ports. We shall close down our modern complex docks system and have a lot of small privateer wharves which will make a lot of money from it at the expense of cheap labour and the community if the Government do not do something about the situation. The Government must not duck behind the issue. They must not say that it is due to technology or worker fighting worker.
The National Ports Council cannot handle the problem like the National Ports Authority under the Labour Government's nationalised ports policy would have proposed to deal with it. Whatever my criticism about that, at least it would have been a central authority to deal with this kind of problem. According to the National Ports Council, there will be 500 more dockers made redundant in the port of Hull by 1975 if the cargo continues to be discharged at wharves in the estuary. There is nothing that the National Ports Council can do about it. It has to accept the Government's policy. It cannot fight the Government. In my area, where dockers have been reduced in numbers from 4,600 in 1966 to 2,500 now, 500 more will have to accept redundancy because the Government believe in this insane policy which cannot be justified by any kind of rational economic criteria, quite apart from social economic cost considerations. The consequence of further redundancies due to the refusal by the Government to act only further incenses dockers to fight to protect their jobs. I have been on the picket line with the dockers and I shall join them again and fight this move, because it is an insane policy which is affecting the whole of Hull. If the Government do not recognise that fact, they are heading for more trouble.
The Jones-Aldington Committee will be given an impossible task. I was somewhat critical of the committee to begin with but I accept its main points. If all


the workers are put back on to full employment and the temporary unattached pool is got rid of, the Government will not continue to subsidise employers or even to have cross-subsidisation through the industry. It is only a temporary measure to create further redundancies.
If one of my dockers is told that he will be paid £4,000 for becoming redundant, his reply will be that that represents only two years' money, that he is talking about the right to work for the rest of his life, and that he is not interested in a lump sum. If the Government cannot get the dockers to accept the redundancy money, and if they do not continue to subsidise the employers, they will not solve the problem. They will merely start the war again, because the men are not prepared to have a ports policy which means the loss of 500 jobs.
The Government can do more to help solve the problem. The consequence of their present policy is the dissipation of traffic over our estuary, the closure of docks and the creation of more unemployment in all sorts of ancillary industries. The Government could alter the financial obligations on the port industry. They could recommend the introduction of the Bristow proposals which at present operate only in London. They could close the small ports. If the Government are concerned about how to do that, let me tell them how it can be done.
The Customs and Excise authorities have to license these ports, and they are licensed until 1972 or 1973. There is no obligation to guarantee them licence to trade after then. The Treasury and the Government could finish these ports overnight by giving them notice that they will not get any more Customs clearance after the present licences expire. The small ports would have to close, and we could then get round to having some sort of co-ordinated policy.
I hope that I have addressed myself to the real issue, which is not that of changing technology but the Government's policy for the ports. Their basic policy has been found wanting in the shipyards, where they insist on operating a market philosophy and talking about profit being the main criterion. Their policy has been found wanting in the

basic engineering industries. It has been found wanting and hence their own Industry Bill. That is why we are debating the philosophy behind the Act. It has also been found wanting in their efforts to provide full employment.
Why should we not continue to reject the Government's view that the market philosophy provides the best means of dealing with the problems in the ports? The Government should introduce a sane ports policy which contains a commitment to ensure that certain ports survive and certain ports do not. If that happens, there will be sane industrial relations which will enable us to have a modern complex in the docks and to get on with the job of improving things in industry generally, and the port communities such as Hull which depend so much upon it.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has taken us in some depth into what is perhaps the central problem that we are discussing in the wider frame of the industrial situation. He has discussed and set out the problems. Whether we accept all his solutions is another matter.
Some of my colleagues may know that I am one of the authors of a pamphlet entitled "Prospects for Employment" which dealt with many problems similar to those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—in fact, we specifically cited the docks—and the impact of containerisation. I think, therefore, that I can perhaps defend myself against the hon. Gentleman's charge that these matters are discussed only on the Floor of the House when a crisis is upon us. Certain of my colleagues and I discussed some of these problems all through last winter, because it is clear that we have to face this problem not only in the docks, where it is particularly acute, but in many other areas too.
The hon. Gentleman cited the unregistered ports and the special wharves that are springing up. He knows too much about the problem not to know that when he refers to 500 dockers being faced with the loss of their jobs, and to talk about getting rid of unregistered ports as the solution, developments that are taking place in cargo handling and in the docks generally which present a


threat to a number of those jobs in any case. The docks crisis has brought most forcefully to the attention of the House a problem that it will increasingly be facing. That is why the Aldington-Jones solution is of such great significance. If we start on this course it is important that we start on it the right way, because we may face this situation in other industries.
Many hon. Members were somewhat surprised at what they considered the generosity of the terms offered and the unrealistic nature of them. I have made some effort to study this problem, and I realise the real difficulties faced by closely-knit communities when employment disappears and there is no immediate prospect of alternative work.
What solutions can be put forward by the Government, by employers and by unions as well in this situation? I am not an expert, but I have real reservations about the background to the Aldington-Jones proposals. On the face of it, merely abolishing the TUR and reallocating men to employers seems like a doctrine of economic lunacy. We are assured that this is a wise and profound proposal. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said so today, and so did my right hon. Friend who described this as stage one. But it gives me some concern when I ask myself whether this proposal can be realistic. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will not try to build a wall around the docks and say that there shall be no change, that for ever this shall be the system under which all goods come into this country and this shall be the perfect and preserved enclave in which these communities will live and work. That is a doctrine of disaster.
The hon. Gentleman left out one significant fact. I have some knowledge of importing. For companies which import it is not just the cost of importing and the dock charges that matter. What matters most is reliability, because if agents are faced with the problem of ships held up the costs are out of all proportion to the extra costs of handling and dock charges.
When my right hon. Friend made his statement on Friday I intervened to say that the tragedy of the present situation was that dockers were doing just the

thing that would aggravate the problem and that by stopping work they were yet again encouraging those elements which are trying to sidetrack the work from the established docks and find alternative, more reliable methods to ensure that goods are delivered on time.
I see the Aldington-Jones Committee as a possible forerunner to plans which may have to be made in other industries where the advent of technical change causes acute employment difficulties in the short term. The attitude to such matters as pensions, compensation payments and retraining could set the pattern. Given that this is a critical situation, and given also that there are great pressures on my right hon. Friends and all those involved to try to reach a settlement. I hope that thought will be given to the implications for settlements which may be necessary in the future in other industries.
I do not wish to talk at length about the docks situation. I should like to say more about the general situation. I have great concern about the present situation. I am concerned about the dialogue of the deaf that has taken up too much of our debates on industrial relations.
In one of his election broadcasts the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who is not present in the Chamber, remarked that on driving down a road in North Devon he saw a notice "Danger—blasting ahead", and he contrasted the paths of the then Government and Opposition and what they would be doing during the election. We are in danger of committing, and already have for too long committed, the sin of too much blasting and not enough constructive discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said fairly that it is not a valid point to attack the Government side of the House over the Industrial Relations Act and the number of days lost. Perhaps we have had enough of the cross-bench discussion about who has had the most strikes or the largest number of days lost. We know that the majority of days lost has had nothing to do with industrial relations and with what happens in factories and plants. The majority of strikes have been politically motivated.

Mr. Loughlin: What about the miners and the railwaymen?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth dealt with the point about the miners' strike and quoted the Committee's report on that point, which satisfactorily established that 10 million of the 14 million days lost was attributable to the miners' strike and the committee found that the main cause of the miners' strike was the pent-up hostility and their falling position in the wages structure in the years 1965 to 1970. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is provoking me into exactly what I did not intend, which is to get involved in traditional blasts and counter-blasts.
Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side may feel jolly today and think that things are going fairly well for them. But I am reminded of what Mayor John Lindsay said after a garbage strike in New York. He was asked who had won and he said "No one conies out of a garbage strike smelling like a rose." That would be true in the present situation and in the problems we face.
We have on the Statute Book an Industrial Relations Act. It has been the subject of what I consider unjustified criticism, a considerable amount of which is based on ignorance. It has been a great complaint of the Opposition that it was unthinkable that any union should register under the Act. Therefore, I take some pleasure in speaking immediately after a member of a union which has registered. As far as I know, that union has not as yet suffered acutely under the Act.

Mr. Prescott: Personally, I disagree with my union's policy and the action it pursued. I want that to be clearly put on record.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. I should merely like to know—this would contribute more to the quality of the discussion—how much the hon. Gentleman's union has suffered by being registered. I always thought that it was unreal fear rather than one of substance.
I refer now to the present situation and the three areas in which there is a degree of unrealism which will not help in the

serious national situation. Undoubtedly the very strength of the opposition of right hon. and hon. Members in the Labour Party to the Act—and as I was present fairly continuously during the debates I know how strenuously they fought it—has contributed to the problem. It has heightened the hopes and fears in this country about what the Act would do. It has heightened the hopes of many of the supporters of my hon. Friends that the Act was capable of achieving a lot more than those who are familiar with industrial matters would say was realistic. It has heightened the fears of many of the supporters of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that perhaps it was a more dreaded weapon than they realised and that it contained very much more fearful penalties than could ever have been justified. Their campaign has not helped towards a serious understanding of the Bill.
The second area concerns the Government. Here we have moved from a situation which originally might have been described as the "cannot deliver" mood, in which it was recognised that there was a problem in the unions' structure and that in talking to the union leadership there was a problem for them in delivery if any negotiations were taking place. We have moved from the "cannot deliver" period but I trust that we are not moving now to the "must deliver" period. Neither of these is a realistic attitude. There seems to be a feeling that so far from previously doubting the ability of the union leaders to deliver their side of any agreement, which is unrealistic, we are now arriving at a situation requiring them to deliver, which is no more realistic.
I and many of my hon. Friends have had problems of this sort at factory floor level. It is the old problem that when there is a dispute the branch secretary says "It is not me; it is the chaps". But when one gets hold of the chaps they say "It is not us; it is the branch". It is like trying to nail a blancmange to the wall. One can never pin it down. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite will say that that is the magic and mystery of democracy in a trade union movement. But this is a serious problem with which to negotiate, if one is an industry, and with which to deal if one is


the Government. I hope that the Government will assess realistically, as I am confident they are now doing, this dilemma in negotiations with trade unions.
I turn now to the situation of the unions. The TUC is in an impossible position at present over the Act. Mr. Victor Feather has been writing and saying "Please repeal the Act" when he knows—he understands the position—that it is simply not realistic to ask the Government to repeal the Act. We have a situation in which the unions, in their posture of refusing to register, are suffering financially. Union members are suffering because when they appear before tribunals there is no balancing union represntative present who might be more sympathetic or more understanding of the problems and able to hear their case when they appear.
And the unions are stuck with one serious problem which they have to justify to the country—that is, that they have given the impression to many people that they are not prepared to accept any reform whatsoever and that they are not prepared to accept any legislation, least of all from a Conservative Government. That is part of the problem that the unions face in their low level of popularity which, according to the opinion polls, is current today. These are the hooks and the problems, the hooks on which certain groups are hung and the problems with which other groups are faced.
In the present situation it is time to say "Enough is enough." It is time we made a fresh start. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side must come clean on the Industrial Relations Act. They must recognise that it bears many similarities to much of the legislation they were proposing. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North said that we must repeal the Act and then we must bring in a Bill with certain things in it. As far as I could count, every single provision he mentioned is at present in the Industrial Relations Act. What the right hon. Gentleman left out were the duties and obligations.
The Labour Party must stand up for what it believes is necessary and must not look over its shoulder. It must not look up to the Gallery, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur

Lewis) is doing, which contains the sort of elements which will not help it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a rule that we are the Chamber and that there is no one present but the Chamber? The hon. Gentleman should know there is no such thing as a Gallery. However, if I did look up there I am proud to have done so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a very sound point, he must not spoil it.

Sir Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the offence of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) worse when he sees fit to attack persons in the Gallery? Is not that grossly unparliamentary?

Mr. King: I do not see how I can attack what does not exist. If the word "elements" is construed as being an attack, I withdraw it. The hon. Member for West Ham, North, who has been very vociferous, must take this from me, because he has been at it much longer than I have and he can dish it out and he will have to take it from me and from others. He must accept it from me that I am attacking him for his behaviour in the House earlier when he seemed to be conducting a charade for the benefit of certain people who "do not exist". When certain people who do not exist withdrew, the hon. Gentleman withdrew and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) was able to continue his speech.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) called for an attitude of consensus. I hope that that cry will come tonight from the Opposition Front Bench, but as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), whom I hardly regard as the high priest of consensus, is to wind up for the Opposition I do not think there will be much endorsement of this view.
The Government should consider reasonable amendments to the Act. As an example, there has been much discussion of the need to place the onus on employers more clearly in appeals against unfair dismissal. This was the Government's intention, but it is clear


that it is not working as the Government intended. The unions should recognise their responsibilities under the Act and should work the Act. The unions should once again be represented on NIRC as well as on the tribunals so that the interests of their members can be properly protected, because the derogation of union members' rights in this regard has been one of the least attractive features of union withdrawal.
There has been much reference to one nation, but I believe that we are two industrial nations. One industrial nation is much torn by strife, is frequently in the news and is the source of many of cur problems of inflation. We have another industrial nation where things are much quieter, which is not much in the news and which represents the bulk of manufacturing industry which is getting on with the job.
It is the duty of the Government, the Opposition, the unions and the public to recognise the need to establish a consensus in which industrial relations can become more harmonious and human relations can develop in the best possible climate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The last speech lasted 21 minutes and the one before that lasted 24 minutes. I beg right hon. and hon. Members to be as brief as possible.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: It will be a long time before hon. Members will be able to claim that they listened to the House at its best and at its worst in consecutive speeches. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was speaking the House listened with rapt attention, because it was listening to a man who understood his subject. The intervention by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) was a classic example of a person contributing to a dangerous situation about which he knew very little. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I remind hon. Members that we are discussing industrial relations, not what is between their ears.
The debate cannot be viewed in isolation from the situation in the docks. Unless something is done to alleviate the present serious situation, we shall be talking, not just about the dockers being on

strike, but possibly about the miners, the electricians and the whole work force. We must acknowledge what a serious situation has developed in industrial relations over the last 12 months.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite should drop the notion that when there is a dispute involving British coal miners, railwaymen or dockers these people are no longer part of the community. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite think that such an attitude is not noticed by the dockers, the miners, the railwaymen and the electricians they make grave error. It is an absurd attitude like this which contributes to the present sourness in industrial relations.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend add to that the fact that it was these very dockers who were bombed out not once but five or six times because they remained loyally in the docks bringing the food in during the war? These are the people who are being attacked.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to leave the Chamber very shortly. Before I do so, may I remind the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that he promised me to speak for only eight minutes.

Mr. Molloy: I acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. As that great Member of the House of Commons, Aneurin Bevan, used to say, the trouble with the Tories was that when the British workman was wanted in times of trouble he was a great fellow who could be called on to make sacrifices and to stand up against any form of totalitarianism, but when in peacetime the British workman decides that he wants a better standard of living in the new world, a better education system for his children, a better house to live in instead of the slum that he had before, he suddenly becomes intolerant and revolutionary.
It is time for the Tory Party to realise that what was demonstrated during the past few weeks was the real meaning of working-class solidarity. When the dockers were gaoled there was no great philosophical conference in South Wales, Hull and the other areas to decide whether the five men should be supported. What sprang up was that same spirit and feeling that has always existed amongst the working-class people who made such


a magnificent contribution during the last war. That spirit of solidarity will endure.
The Tories are making the greatest mistake of their lives if they believe that they can smash the British trade union movement by attacking it piecemeal, attacking the miners one month, the dockers the next, the railwaymen the next. Some proposals which have emanated from the Front Bench opposite and from the back benches opposite suggest that that lies behind the whole idea. If this is so, not only will the Tories destroy their own party, but they will cause much greater havoc than already exists in industrial relations.
Over the past 18 months more than ever before workers by hand and brain have come to class the Conservative Party as the party of the bosses. The hon. Member for Bridgwater challenged the right of hon. Members to debate the Act when it was a Bill. What a foul thing for an Opposition to do in a free society, to oppose a Bill! We know what the alternative is. We know the sort of society we would create if that sort of thing happened. These debates are examined by working men and women and they get apprehensive when they read speeches like that. They read that it is bad for the people and for the trade unions to contribute to the Labour Party, because that is political activity. But if anybody contributes a couple of million pounds to the Tory Party they read that the Government think that is all right, because the donor has nothing else to do with it.
Industrial relations are moving to a very serious situation and it is not only an issue of what is happening in industry. When a docker, a miner or a railwayman goes home from the picket lines he talks things over with the family. They know the grave risks that they will be running. They know from personal experience the meaning of industrial action in financial terms. But they do these things for the principle of justice. The Government must realise that this massive solidarity exists among the men and women in our great industries. They will ignore the threats of any Government if they believe they are getting a raw and unjust deal.
There is one canard which is offered by the Conservatives whenever there is

an application for a wage increase. It is said that the workers do not think of the old age pensioners or those on fixed incomes, and that they are greedy. But I have never heard that argument applied to speculators, land profiteers and some of the commercial racketeers. They are never charged with disregarding old age pensioners. That is the sort of thing which is discussed in working-class Britain and the Conservatives would do well to appreciate it.
If the Conservatives say that the working man is greedy and that he does not consider the old age pensioner they must remember that the overwhelming majority of old-age pensioners are of working-class origin. They have had to fight hard for a decent pension. They had to live through the 1930s when, far from being able to save, they were lucky to have a job. There was no chance of putting away something for retirement then. The reality of industrial relations is that the younger man in industry today does not want to end up in the same situation as today's old age pensioners.
This afternoon we heard the first hint that the Government will amend the Industrial Relations Act. We heard it from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope that it is true and that they have used the debate to prepare the way for a climb down. I hope they have the courage to do so because there is nothing to be ashamed of in admitting that they were wrong and that now is the time to change the Act. If they do not amend the Act industrial relations will get more and more sour, there will be greater unity between working men and women and we shall move towards the possibility of a general strike. When the Tories talk about the Opposition welcoming industrial disputes they are talking nonsense. We identify ourselves with justice for the working class in its aspirations for a higher standard of living.
If the Government have the courage to admit that the Industrial Relations Act might make a contribution to the situation if it were amended, the country could be on the verge of creating a different atmosphere in industrial relations. Such a move would win the support of the TUC, the CBI and most people in industry. In that atmosphere, we could move forward to a situation of fair play,


justice and sanity in industrial relations not for the benefit of any particular party, but for the benefit of the nation.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: I found the language of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) as exaggerated as his idea of an eight-minute speech. I have listened to by far the greater part of the debate but I have not heard the point of view of the public as a whole put forward very often. Speaking to constituents one cannot but be impressed with the concern many of them have about what is happening and their fears about where events are leading. No doubt colourful reporting of the dispute and, not least, actual quotations from certain dock workers have helped to induce a sense of concern and even fear of a possible descent into anarchy. I do not believe that that theory is entirely justified, but it is growing and it is being fed and the Government and the Opposititon have responsibilities for this matter.
I turn first to the Opposition. In spite of what is said in the Chamber, many moderate members of the Labour Party and the trade union movement are worried about the swing to extremism on their side of the political fence. This has meant that many reasonable men are forced to use immoderate language to preserve their position. But on the Industrial Relations Act they are stuck with their attitudes, because by protesting too much and by playing on the fears of those who know very little even now about its workings, they put themselves in a position where to be seen to collaborate with the Act in any way is to be guilty of treason to their own cause.
The result has been, especially in the last week or so, that speeches have been made giving encouragement to people who are engaged in defying the law. They include the various utterances of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), the speech in the Chamber last week of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and the almost hysterical outburst on television on Sunday by Mr. Vic Feather at Great Yarmouth, no matter how he may try to wriggle out of it later. All of this has helped to create the impression that the Industrial Rela-

tions Act is not part of the law of the land and should be defied.
No wonder there is a considerable degree of industrial unrest and no wonder we find supporters of the supposedly alternative Government and the General Secretary of the TUC using language that arouses violent emotions. That attitude does a disservice not only to the future of the Labour movement but to any future Labour Government and to the cause of parliamentary democracy. That is why the Opposition have a responsibility in the matter. It is no good their blaming the situation in the docks or anywhere else where there is industrial unrest on the Government and the Industrial Relations Act alone.
The Labour Party has actively stirred up discontent against the Act. Why does it not mention the many hundreds of individual workers who successfully claim compensation for unjust dismissal as a result of the Act? Why does it keep crying, "Repeal" and not say, "Amend"? Why does it keep giving the impression that the Act is totally wrong, when many parts of it are similar to those the Opposition suggested when they were the Government? Until the Opposition face up to their responsibilities in the matter they will not allay the fears of the general public of possible anarchy and they undermine their own position. They are entitled to oppose the Act, to threaten to repeal it or amend it. But when they have fought a piece of legislation in this Chamber they should realise that once it is on the Statute Book they should constitutionally uphold the law of the land and see that the Act is obeyed.
I turn briefly to the Government. The public have a natural reliance on the Government of the day, whatever its political colour, and believe that the Government's job is to preserve law and order. Therefore, whilst I agree that the Government must be moderate and must be anxious to co-operate, it would be fatal if they were seen to retreat on a properly enacted piece of legislation for which they had a mandate at the last General Election. If they retreat in the present climate they will endanger not only some of their support on these benches but also their support in the country. What is perhaps worse, they will strengthen the feelings of some that


Parliament is no longer the supreme authority in the land. This will not allay public fears about future parliamentary democracy.
The Government have a greater responsibility in this respect than the Opposition. Although I agree that the public fears are exaggerated, there is a feeling abroad there will sooner or later have to be a confrontation or showdown. I hope that this will never happen, but if we are to avoid it both sides will have to accept their responsibility. Otherwise, more politically-motivated extremists will cause greater industrial unrest on the one hand, and on the other we shall cause greater disillusion with, even rejection of, our system of parliamentary Government.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said that the Opposition have a clear duty and responsibility for many of the things happening in society today, since they were happening during our term in Government. Certainly, industrial unrest was taking place and jobs were being lost in major industries under the previous Government, but people were working and living in a far healthier atmosphere. Miners accepted their loss of jobs. The dockers have been losing their jobs for many years by the thousands. But the atmosphere then was far different from the present atmosphere. We do not say that all that is happening today is as a result of the Tory Government, but certainly many problems have been caused and created by the Government. The hon. Gentleman said that conflict was being courted by some people and that the showdown must come. That is rubbish. Indeed the idea of conflict and confrontation was courted by the Government themselves with many of their policies on coming into office, with people being asked to stand on their own two feet, and the "lame duck" policy.
Before 1970 the Prime Minister throughout the country, and particularly in Croydon in 1969, promised a new era of industrial peace if he were to win the General Election. He said that he had a plan to reduce the number of man-days lost through industrial stoppages. Great play was made during the election campaign of the mammoth increase in man-days lost during the period of the

Labour Government. It was a considerable figure—24 million in five years and eight months. Yet within a period of 18 months we have now seen 37 million man days lost, an increase of 54 per cent.
The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said, "Yes, but there have been fewer strikes than under a Labour Government." If it is a case of the bigger the strike the better, God help the Government and their back benchers.
The pledge before June, 1970, was to reduce the number of man-days lost through industrial unrest, yet immediately on the Government's coming to office they began a policy of conflict in every aspect of Government policy which has severed industrial and social life. We can cite the Housing Finance Bill, the October, 1970, Budget and the health and welfare charges. It was a deliberate policy of creating conflict within society. We had divisive policies pursued by a Government led by an abrasive Prime Minister. Many Conservative Members are beginning to question whether such leadership is desirable or in the best interests even of their party. We have in our industrial situation an atmosphere of conflict and far too many people troubled by and hit directly by Tory policies.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough spoke about the public interest as though every conflict the Government have created in the past 18 months did not involve people. There was the dockers' dispute in the early months of their Government, the postmen, the electricians, the miners, the railwaymen and now the deckers yet again. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if those involved and their families are not part of society and part of the public interest that the hon. Gentleman talks about. They are not the "greedy people" of society, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary described them recently, because they dare to ask for an increase of a few pounds a week to earn an average manufacturing wage of £27 to £28 a week—even less in many instances.
I trust that the Government will have learned, albeit very slowly, that it is their duty to govern the whole nation and not constantly speak glibly of one nation and the need to unify the country, and yet


make statements and allow their backbenchers to rage rampant up and down the country condemning ordinary working-class people for being "greedy" in having the "audacity" to want a decent wage. The miners' strike taught the Government a lesson, though it was too late.
We on this side are not saying that the Industrial Relations Act itself is the only cause of our present situation. I do not think it is the only cause. There are many others. One is the fear of ordinary people when they see the industrial and employment situation, the million unemployed that we had a few months ago, the 400,000 people made redundant in the past two years, the declining number of jobs in prospect in the regions. It is only natural that people are very afraid of what will happen to their own job, their own industry, their own area, their own region. They see massive decline. In Wales, for example, 34,000 people have been made redundant in the past two years and only 8,000 new jobs have been created. The jobs gap is widening.
People are naturally fearful about what is to happen to them. There are many pressures on ordinary people in modern society and it is time that the Government realised that they have to deal with these people in an understanding and sensible way rather than dismiss them as people seeking to undermine the situation, as greedy people, selfishly motivated. These people have a basic right to defend their own interests—their livelihood; they have a right to be concerned. It is a tragedy that we only turn to the problems of people such as the dock workers when there is a crisis upon us. We are not constantly mindful of what is happening in the industrial situation, with technological change taking place, and of the structural impact of those changes in the traditional industries. Hon. Members opposite say that working people must co-operate to implement this structural change. I shudder to think where they have been living for the past 10 years.
About 40,000 miners lost their jobs in Wales over six or seven years. They co-operated with the Government and the Coal Board. In the docks there has been a 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. decrease in the number of people employed. They

are co-operating in the changes which Governments are asking to be made. It is clearly time that the Government stopped creating this divisive force, portraying ordinary people as "wreckers".
I now turn to the question of law and order and to the maintenance and implementation of the law. There is no question but that the duty of law is to strengthen and not destroy the sense of national consensus. Unfortunately, far too often over the last two years, laws have been passed which have made people wonder whether this was the aim of the Government. Let me make my position quite clear. There is only one place where laws can be changed and that is here. It is our duty as an Opposition and as the next Government to state that clearly. We are also in a responsible position as Members of Parliament because while we are able to make laws, we should be making laws which command the wide support of the people.

Mr. Fry: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the fact that every opinion poll seems to show that the Industrial Relations Act still has the overwhelming support of the people?

Mr. Jones: As one who was employed in market research for a few years before coming to this place, and as the experience of the last General Election has taught people to think twice about opinion polls, if the hon. Member still supports opinion polls it is probably time he either packed all of this up or began reading his textbooks a second time. I am not sure whether majority opinion in this country always supports the Industrial Relations Act.
It is our duty to enact laws which command wide support. As I have said, we are in this privileged position and therefore must be careful about the sort of laws we enact. We cannot ride roughshod over the opinions and views of millions of people as if they do not matter, turning to them for support only once every five years and, having got it, moving away from them regardless of what they are trying to tell us. This is one of the tragedies of modern politics—we have lost communication with the ordinary people. Governments do not listen to what people are trying to tell them. The sooner we return to the situation when Governments do listen.


the sooner that this Government accepts that the people of this country are trying to tell them something now, the better the industrial relations scene will be.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: How would the hon. Gentleman amend the Industrial Relations Act?

Mr. Jones: I was about to come to that question. Before doing so I want to supplement what I was saying about laws commanding wide support. Law must also be respected. The upholding of the law is important and to do this laws must be consistently implemented. If we look at what has happened over the past few weeks in industrial relations we find that consistency is the last thing that has been evident. The five dockers were imprisoned on Thursday and released on Monday. Upon their release, they carried on the same activities as before yet the same law did not treat them as it has earlier treated them. There was also the question of the sympathy strike. What about those who came out in support of the dockers? The Act was designed to deal with them. If we want the law to be respected we must be careful to ensure that we have laws which can be implemented and consistently applied.

Mr. Tom Bradley: The law has been brought into disrepute.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I suggest that the law has been brought into disrepute not by workers who are questioning the Industrial Relations Act but by the lawyers, the Solicitor General and by the Courts. Indeed, the three railway unions carried out the Industrial Relations Act provisions to the "nth" degree. Everything that was asked of them they did and yet at the end of the day the Industrial Relations Act failed to do what the Prime Minister thought it would do in one of his mad moments—and he seems to have had many of these over the last two years—and that was to solve disputes.
I come to the question of conciliation. On coming into power, the Government abandoned the important rôle of the conciliation officers in the Department of Employment. The thing to do was to stand up to every wage claim, they said.

Of course the Government had every right to do that, but the fact is that they brought themselves into disrepute when finally the other side stood up to them and the Government ran away, as happened with the miners.
In full fury there was the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment telling the nation how they would deal with these people and yet they had to give in and say that the miners' case was a "special case". Of course it was, but it was not just a special case in January and February when the Government succumbed. It was a special case in November 1971.
The Government have lost their way. They set out in 1970 to dismantle the machinery and impose their own individual stamp on the country. We now begin to see a retreat on every policy. Today we hear talk of an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act. This is nothing to hon. Members opposite and here I congratulate them upon their loyalty to the leadership, which is immense. I do not believe that I will ever see such loyalty anywhere else in the world. People who were elected on one platform in 1970, pledged to abolish grants, are now eager to implement them through the Industry Bill. If hon. Members can take that sort of thing I am sure that they can take the repeal or amendment of the Industrial Relations Act with equanimity. They need not worry a bit about that. The Government have a serious responsibility and it is time that they accepted that the claims of people in every sector merit consideration—the low wage earners, those fearful of the continuance of their jobs, those facing redundancy and people in insecure employment. It is time that the Government stopped reacting in the way that they have for far too long. They say that people must stand on their two feet. That is all well and good. But if people are asked to do that they have the right to say, "Give us the means for it. Give us the money, conditions and environment in which we are able to live happily".

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: It is to the great credit of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr Gwynoro Jones) that he clearly said that only this House can change the law and


that the law must be upheld. I wish that that was the view which had been expressed by some of his colleagues. At least two hon. Members have expressed the view that not all the laws must be obeyed.
Last week, during the debate on industrial relations, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said:
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North does not represent the views of all Opposition Members, or the majority of views throughout the British Labour movement, when he says that at all times all laws must be obeyed and all courts must be obeyed."—[OFFICIALREPORT, 25th July, 1972: Vol. 841, c. 1587.]
That statement is nothing short of a recipe for civil war, and it is certainly not supported by the vast majority of the people of this country. Whether the law be good or bad, 99 per cent. of the people believe that it should be upheld until it is changed by this democratically elected Parliament. If the view were to prevail that the law should be flouted and deliberately disobeyed because certain groups did not like it, not only would Parliament be undermined but we should be on the road to destroying democracy completely.
Those who preach defiance of the law—and, regrettably, there are far too many of them on the benches opposite—are creating a sense of insecurity and fear among many people, particularly the elderly and retired, the disabled and the weak and, I have no doubt, among millions of workers and trade unionists. The hon. Member for Tottenham is wrong when he claims that a large number of people do not support the rule of law.
Let me illustrate that by referring to something which happened in my town of Brighton in the last few days. In the middle of last week the officers of the Brighton Trades Council—invariably men holding the most extreme political Left-wing views who, frankly, are much more interested in further political ends rather than the interests of the trade unionists in Brighton—called upon Brighton trade unionists to strike yesterday. They called for a strike which would stop Brighton's transport, bring her services to a halt and disrupt her industry. A number of people in Brighton, including myself, asked trade unionists in the area to think very carefully before they supported such an irresponsible strike. The strike was to

be called in protest against the Industrial Relations Act.
How many Brighton trade unionists came out in support of that strike? One might have thought that a response from 1,000, 2,000 or even 5,000 would not have been surprising. In fact the number was exactly 150, led by a Communist councillor, who was recently a member of the Brighton Labour Party, and other extreme Left-Wing militants in the student element. The result was a victory for common sense and a humiliating defeat for the political extremists in Brighton. I hope that the more moderate and sensible Members opposite will be glad that the extremisits received such a crushing defeat.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Was the hon. Member disappointed that only 150 turned out, or would he have welcomed 1,000?

Mr. Bowden: The object of quoting that example was to show that the vast majority of trade unionists, and certainly the people of this country, are not against the Industrial Relations Act and that the strike was deliberately called as a political strike to protest against the Act and it proved to be a most monumental flop.
I have no doubt that there exists in this country a somewhat loose alliance, but an alliance, of extremist elements, coming under a broad range of names—Communists, Marxists, Maoists, anarchists or whatever one likes to call them—who wish to create a situation which would lead to bloodshed and violence. When hon. and indeed right hon. Members opposite deliberately encourage sections of the community or individuals to flout the rule of law, they are paving the way to a situation which could lead to bloodshed on the streets of this country.
What could be more disgraceful than the weekend speech by the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. Vic Feather, in which he said that the Industrial Act was not part of the law of this country. Notwithstanding his substantial withdrawal of that statement yesterday, that sort of remark by a man holding a key position in the trade union movement, industrial life and economy of the country sows the most frightful seeds which could, but I pray will not, lead to civil war. I have no doubt that the wrath of the British people will fall upon any


group or person who attempts to undermine the rule of law.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden) will do well to analyse his speech in the context of the remarks which he made about ludicrous extremism. We have heard some extraordinary observations during this debate; the hon. Member's observations almost beat the lot. We have also heard some very worrying and profoundly disturbing observations in the wider context of the debate which has been going on in the country during the past week or ten days.
I am a little disturbed that we have not subjected to a good deal more analysis the remark which I distinctly heard the Secretary of State make in a radio discussion that the rule of law was more profoundly important or fundamental in our society than perhaps even parliamentary democracy. That remark would be endorsed by Mr. Vorster in South Africa and by almost every totalitarian leader the world has seen. It would have been endorsed by Stalin. I am a fervent believer in our democratic parliamentary system, but it is a dangerous over-simplification to suggest that one can possibly subscribe to the thesis that in all circumstances the rule of law must take precedence over everything else. We must be able to examine dispassionately the quality and morality of the laws we are being asked to obey.
If I have a major indictment of our parliamentary system, it is, as this debate again illustrates, that we are frequently unable to think ahead and we are often preoccupied with reacting to events which have already overtaken us.
No one will underestimate the significance of the industrial dispute which primarily concerns us tonight, but even as we discuss it there are in the wings other industrial problems which are not grasping our attention. There is, for example, the tragic situation of those with little bargaining power, direct employees of the Government, who are suffering basic wage rates of as little as £17 a week or hardly more and who are in no position to make us in the House of Commons respond to their immediate human crisis

or need. There are those in the professional classes who are unable to bring pressure to bear but to whom we should pay attention if we are concerned about tile quality of our society. There are the senior citizens, the pensioners, who have virtually no opportunity to compel us to give them the priority they deserve.
Another thesis which has come out in the debate and which worries me deeply is the tendency of some hon. Members to play softly the significance of the docks issue. It would be wrong for us to minimise the significance of this industrial problem because it is symptomatic of a much more profound problem within our society which hon. Members on both sides of the House should be prepared to analyse. I am certain beyond doubt that there is genuine anxiety, bewilderment and a sense of disillusion amongst a wide cross-section of the British population. Unless we can at least for a time forsake political point-scoring and get down to the job of examining the structural weaknesses in our community, we shall not rehabilitate public confidence in the parliamentary democratic system. There is now more questioning of the parliamentary democratic system of British society, its adequacy and relevance than there has been for decades.
In analysing the structural weaknesses of our society, the first which should attract our attention is the slogan used by the Conservative Party at the last General Election. It used the immoral and fatuous argument that it would build the future of British society on the basis that people would be encouraged to stand on their own two feet. Every industrial and economic crisis with which we have been confronted since the Government came to office has manifestly demonstrated that if there is one thing true of our society it is that none of us is able to stand on his own two feet. Our society is essentially interdependent. Unless we recognise that interdependence we shall never be able even to start correcting the basic faults which are worrying us this evening.
Another issue we have to examine which is essentially relevant to the immediate issue concerns the accountability of economic power. We talk about tile need for trade unionists individually and collectively to co-operate in the national interest. When I see a constant


accumulation of greater and greater amounts of economic power within the hands of people who are in no way accountable to the democratic system, I ask myself how we can in any rational sense expect self-respecting men who have struggled to establish their rights in society to forgo their hard-won privileges in the cause of co-operation for the sake of the interests of the wider community if as a result of restraining their actions they see a strengthening and still greater enhancement of irresponsible economic power in the community.
With all the earnestness I can muster I say to the Conservatives that if they expect full-hearted co-operation from the community as a whole they must be able to establish that that co-operation will genuinely result in significant and qualitative improvements for the community as a whole and not just for those who have the economic power.
We also have to examine the technological revolution. To some extent we have been enslaved by worshipping gross national product and economic growth through the technological revolution as an end in itself. I am sorry if I seem rather naïve in this respect, but I always ask myself one fundamental question about any form of economic or industrial organisation. That is, how does it qualitatively improve the lives of the people? We in the House in recent years have failed to subject the forms of technological change to the scrutiny which they demand. The whole system is becoming increasingly impersonal both in the private and the public sector. It has a dehumanising effect and results in workers becoming mere extensions of the machines which they operate.
Those who have suggested that we are faced with a crisis simply because of the dedication of a minority group of militants are deceiving themselves. If there are militants at work, they can only get a grasp because of the general widespread feeling of unease, dissatisfaction and fear. Unless we can come to grips with this in human terms, we are just playing with the problem. The overriding challenge to our society is how to break down the system into manageable proportions.
People talk about the need for a responsible society, but how can we have

a responsible society, by definition, unless people see and feel their personal responsibility within the system? I agree with what was said on the Liberal benches earlier, that we should use the public sector of our economic system for experimentation in how to bring precisely this form of organisation about.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I am following the hon. Gentleman's thesis with interest and I have a certain amount of sympathy with some of his points. But will he not at least acknowledge that the Government's code of industrial relations practice, which is part and parcel of the Industrial Relations Act, is an attempt to try to go some way towards the philosophy he is expounding?

Mr. Judd: I know that the Minister sincerely tries to examine the problems with which we are confronted, but with great respect I do not agree. The code is trying to iron out some of the problems which have resulted from a social structure which is no longer adequate to meet the challenges which confront the nation. Unless we get a redistribution of power in our society with far more ability for people in a host of different ways to come to grips with controlling their destiny in units that make sense we shall continue to stagger from crisis to crisis.
I have sometimes been accused of being too melodramatic in making this point, but I want to make it again because it is basic to my whole political philosophy. We are preoccupied tonight with one major symptom of the basic faults in our society; next month we shall no doubt be preoccupied with another. We never step aside to look at our historical position against the background of what has happened to every other civilisation in human history. I do not believe it is a coincidence that every other civilisation in history has declined or been destroyed. We have to ask ourselves what are the common origins of this fate of humanity in the past.
One common origin has been an over-centralisation, an over-remoteness of administration, a failure in communication—ever extended lines of communication and responsibility. If our society is to avoid the fate of every other


civilisation in history, it is to this problem that we must address ourselves. It is no longer an elitist intellectual argument, it is an immediate political reality. How do we re-distribute power and break down society into manageable units in which people have personal responsibility and see their personal responsibility? What we have to do is for a moment to break out of our immediate preoccupations, to see them in perspective and to see the real challenge to Parliament which confronts us.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I believe it is generally accepted, not only in this House but in the country at large, that the Industrial Relations Act is necessary and must be made to work. We have suffered great disruption through strikes and many people are becoming disillusioned by the fact that we continually have to put up with so much inconvenience in our daily lives.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) mentioned pensioners and I, too, want to talk about such people and low wage earners, many of whom I have in my constituency. These are the people who suffer and lose out on every occasion. It is worth looking at the figures to see how many people are engaged in strike action. Last year only 4 per cent. of the working population were actually engaged in industrial disputes—only 1.1 million out of the 25 million working force. It is probably true that no more than 10 per cent. of the working population have ever been engaged in an industrial dispute.
It is the other 90 per cent. who are becoming so disillusioned at what is happening. They feel that they lose out on every occasion and pay three times over. They pay first for the inconvenience caused by the strike; secondly, they pay the higher prices which follow a settlement—and often the settlements are not at all fair; and, thirdly, they pay for the benefits paid to strikers while they have voluntarily stopped work. I believe that people in the country generally have become fed up with this state of affairs since they cannot understand the sense of it.
We have now launched the Industrial Relations Act, a Measure which both

sides of the House recognise as necessary and essential. Although the Labour Government were unable to get it on to the Statute Book, the present Government have courageously enacted it. Unfortunately, they made one drastic mistake. They launched the Act into an impossible climate—a climate in which every strike must succeed and in which unions and their members had nothing to lose. The union funds are not at risk and in one way and another, with tax refunds reductions and benefits paid to dependants, the strikers themselves have little to lose. I am sure that this state of affairs must be changed if we are to expect this Act to succeed and to achieve sound and reasonable industrial relations.
I recently asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to investigate what happens to strikers in other countries in terms of benefits. In Germany, Sweden, Holland and Belgium the situation is characterised by a low incidence of strikes, high levels of union strike pay and a recognition by unions and public that strikers should not turn to the State for relief. In France and Italy there is virtually no help from the State at all. Again, in the United States the unions generally support the strikers. None of the countries surveyed provides payment of social assistance from public funds to strikers' families comparable to the payment of supplementary benefits in Great Britain.

Mr. John Golding: rose—

Mr. Howell: No, I cannot give way. Since our record is as bad as that of any other industrialised country, I believe that there is some relationship between the fact that we are so lenient to strikers by giving benefits from the public purse and the fact that we allow the unions to create a strike without risking union funds.
There are two things we must do immediately. The first is to reform the PAYE system. I believe that the Government have already grasped this point and that the new tax credit system, which we hope will come into operation in three or four years' time, will probably solve the problem. However, I am not satisfied that we can afford to wait that long and to operate the present silly system, which provides for an immediate repayment of


tax of as much as £6 a week as soon as a person stops work. This is one of the prime causes of our troubles. As soon as a strike develops, the first thing that happens is that the Department of Health and Social Security rushes along, and sets up establishments to pay benefits to strikers' families. This is absolute nonsense and should stop. I believe the great majority of people recognise that this is a foolish practice and the sooner something is done about the situation the better.
I do not believe the idea of paying benefit to strikers stands up at all. Many people think that this is a hard attitude to take and have tried to put forward other ideas by which the money could he reclaimed or the unions compelled to make up what has been paid out by the State. I do not believe any of these things would work because they would cause far more trouble than they were worth.
I cannot understand why the State should have such a conscience about strikers. If a man is absent from work for any length of time and receives no pay from his employers, the State could not care less about what happens to his wife or children, there is no provision for any help to be given to somebody who absents himself from work. Furthermore, if a person is at work and receives his pay, the State does not care what happens to that money; the person concerned can squander it on the way home and his wife and children can be left in very desperate straits. Why should the State decide that as soon as organised labour elects to stop work, immediate provision must be made to look after the dependants of strikers? I do not think that it is a policy which stands up to examination, and I hope that the Government will think seriously about it since the future of the Industrial Relations Act is in jeopardy so long as we try to run it in today's climate.
I believe that the country is crying out for strong, firm government—

Mr. Neil Kinnock: And a General Election.

Mr. Howell: It recognises that it will not get strong, firm government from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. A General Election will solve nothing.

The reason why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are in opposition today is that they could not provide that sort of government when they were in office.
I think that we should recognise ow popular it would be if we returned to the firm government that we were providing during our first 18 months in office. We must cease to be afraid of the high unemployment figure, a great deal of which is fictitious. We must cease to be afraid of the possibility of disorder. We must cease to prop up industries such as UCS merely because we fear disorder in that part of the county. We should cease to give away benefits to strikers merely because we are afraid of the adverse publicity which would pour out from the Press if we attempted to alter the system—

Mr. George Wallace: Are we to conclude from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he advocates the introduction of martial law into Britain in order to get the sort of government he wants to see?

Mr. Howell: That remark was quite unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. All that I ask for is reasonable conditions such as those that exist in other countries. I believe that the great majority of people in this country are heartily fed up with the way in which the State intervenes in every strike on the side of the striker by means of benefits. This policy was an embarrassment to the Labour Government. It is an embarrassment to this Government. I trust that we shall get the firm government that the country deserves.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I want to make one short specific point and then some general observations. The short specific point is to correct an impression given by right hon. and hon. Members opposite both today and in a previous debate on industrial relations. On each occasion I sought to intervene to correct the impression, but I was unable to do so. I take this opportunity to correct it.
It has been said repeatedly by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that there is no provision in the Industrial Relations Act dealing with contempt.


That is quite inaccurate. Contempt is dealt with specifically in Section 154 of the Act and it is mentioned again in paragraph 27(2) of the Third Schedule.
What right hon. and hon. Members opposite intended to convey was the fact that there was no mention of imprisonment for contempt, and that is probably the most useful message to go out to the country from this debate. Though I have no doubt that imprisonment was in the background of the Government's minds when they pushed the Bill through this House, surely the message which ought to go out from this debate is that had the Bill specifically excluded imprisonment for contempt our industrial atmosphere today would be that much happier.
There is no provision in any Act of Parliament which compels any court to send a person to prison for contempt. If the National Industrial Relations Court never again committed any worker for contempt, would anyone in the country say that our industrial relations would be the worse for it?
The courts have a function which is different from the legislative function. The function of the Executive is another function. I hope that my specific observation will fall on ears which are not deaf—

Mr. Rees-Davis: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that valuable point, which I think is quite correct, it should be made plain for the record that it is clear from the Industrial Relations Act that what was aimed at was the corporations, namely, organisations of workers and the trade unions. It is impossible to imprison a trade union. The Law Lords have made it plain that if the representatives, the shop stewards, are the authoritative body of the organisation of workers, whether or not they are registered, the Act will operate against the trade union. Therefore there can be no question of imprisonment for contempt, but merely a fine. That was a correct conclusion on the part of Sir John Donaldson, and it has been upheld.

Mr. Murray: I accept that helpful intervention. However I leave the point of contempt where I sought to leave it originally. I do not accept every point which the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) made. He

indicated that the House of Lords decision last week solved the problem. I do not accept that. There are many difficulties left, and individual workers can still be imprisoned for contempt.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell) was in error in confusing the problem of trade union administration and trade union relations in industry with the problem of law and order. The problems are separate, and no useful purpose is served by suggesting that the industrial relations problem, as it faces us in the economy and in society today, is anything to do with the general problem of law and order. Obviously when people are pressed to the limit in the case of legislation which they do not like, questions of law and order will arise. I do not maintain that such questions are not relevant, but to identify the problem of industrial relations with the problem of law and order is less than useful.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said in an earlier contribution. There are various ways in which laws can be bad. For example, laws can be bad because they go against the wishes of an important section of the community. One cannot effectively pass and enforce a law which requires Moslems to eat pork or Hindus to eat beef.
I appreciate that industrial relations is a different matter, but equally, one cannot have an effective, enforceable law which seeks to discriminate or isolate a section of the community and treat them in a different way from the rest of the population. In that sense the accusation of bad law which is attributed to the Industrial Relations Act is fairer because there is an attempt, on any view, to legislate for the trade unions as a body. In so legislating, unless one is going to carry everybody with one by general consent—and one cannot expect to carry everybody in the trade union movement in any legislation—or to achieve a general consensus within the trade union movement, then one has bad law in that sense. If there is legislation for a group which does not have a degree of consensus, there will be bad law.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. and learned Gentleman must know above all people—he played a prominent part in the passing of the Act—that the Act does


not apply to trade unions only but also to employers in the whole sphere of industrial relations.

Mr. Murray: I accept that at once, but it does not alter the point which I was making. For example, if we get legislation dealing with the fishing industry, the kind of fish which can be caught, that greatly affects individual fishermen and employers. Basically one is legislating there for groups which have to some extent a common interest. In so far as one is dealing with working conditions, however, one has a different situation where the workers' interest is in many respects different from the employers' interest.
While I accept that the Act applies to employers and employees, no fairminded person would doubt for a moment that its impact, its main cutting edge, is against the trade unions and therefore against the workers. It is for that reason that one has to be realistic. If one legislates for a particular group in society and does not carry a general consensus, that law will be bad law and one will have to take the consequences.
I follow those observations with another point in the same vein. If one uses such legislation to try to affect the economic balance in society, the more one is going to make bad law. One will generate all kinds of antipathies that may not be related to the legal structure one is trying to alter. There cannot be the slightest doubt on looking at the Industrial Relations Act that it is intended to alter the economic and social balance of the trade unions in our society. Indeed, that was presented as a virtue by hon. Members opposite during our long-drawn out debates.
Time prevents me from elaborating the argument. I conclude, therefore, by pointing out that the dialogue between the trade unions and the law in this country has been a very sorry one for many generations and that the time has come for change in that if in nothing else. It is nothing less than tragic that for generations, if not for hundreds of years, the trade unions were outlawed by the law. By their own efforts, they brought about the sense of order and constitutionality which permeates the trade unions today. Let no one under-estimate that sense of order and constitutionality. Hearing hon.

Members opposite talking about the trade unions, one realises how little they know of the reality. One should take them to trade union meetings. They would be astonished to find all the orderly, constitutionally-minded people there. They would bring away a picture of the ideal citizen. That is the reality of trade unionism. The trade unions have not fought to disown or escape the law. They have sought to be accepted by the law all through these years. Yet all they get from Tory Governments time and again is a slap in the face—and the latest slap is the miserable Industrial Relations Act.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I acknowledge the moderation which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has shown in all his comments on these very difficult matters of industrial relations, but I was sorry that he marred his speech by questioning the quality of the judgment of the House of Lords on the ground, apparently, that their Lordships had rushed into a judgment. I do not know who put him up to that, but it was a thoroughly bad point.
The right hon. Gentleman challenged hon. Members on this side to answer a question, and I would like to try and answer it because as far as I am aware—although I have been out of the Chamber for moments at a time—it has not yet been answered. He asked why the dockers were sent to prison. It is fundamental and it is a fact that they were sent to prison not because of any offence against the Industrial Relations Act but because of an offence against the court.

Mr. Bidwell: What court?

Mr. Gardner: The High Court of Justice. The Industrial Relations Court is part of the Hight Court of Justice. Make no mistake about that. It is a fundamental fact and it would be a monstrous misrepresentation for anyone to try to persuade the unions or anyone else to the contrary.
I want to refer in particular to the Official Solicitor. I am sorry that he has the title of Official Solicitor.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It is all right.

Mr. Gardner: I am not sure that it is. It is a Victorian title which can be misleading. The Official Solicitor is an officer of the Supreme Court of Justice. He acts, he can act, he does act and he did act in the case of the dockers with complete impartiality. He has no connection with the Government; the Government have no control over what he does. He did what he did on his own initiative. I would like to see—I think it is a reasonable suggestion—the Official Solicitor given another and more realistic title, something like "public advocate" or "public protector".
Obviously the Industrial Relations Act is not perfect. I doubt whether any Act is. It may be that time will show that it will stand in need of amendment, but it is not sensible to argue that the Act has failed because some people have been sent to prison for contempt of the court which had the duty of administering the Act. It is no more sensible to rely on that argument than it would be to say that our matrimonial laws have failed because a party in a matrimonial dispute has been sent to prison for contempt of court.
The Industrial Relations Act was never expected to put an end to industrial disputes any more than the matrimonial laws could be expected to put an end to matrimonial disputes. The Act was intended to fulfil, and I believe that it does fulfil, one of the main purposes by providing parties to an industrial dispute with an orderly and lawful means of settling such disputes. That intention of the Act has not been defeated, and that kind of service from our courts of law is just as essential to the future of trade unionism as it is to the future of the country.

Mr. Crowder: My hon. and learned Friend has rightly pointed out that the National Industrial Relations Court is part of the High Court. Why on earth do we call him Sir John Donaldson? He is Mr. Justice Donaldson. And why are not counsel robed, and why is not the whole apparatus of the High Court put into effect?

Mr. Gardner: I thought he was called the president of the National Industrial Relations Court. But be that as it may. Time is pressing, and I wish not to detain the House much longer.
In my view, a view shared I think by many people who have great anxiety about the working of the Industrial Relations Act and the Court which administers it, the Act provides, so to speak, the Queensberry Rules by which industrial disputes, we hope, may be settled in the future.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Who is the referee then?

Mr. Gardner: The referee is a High Court judge, in this case the president of the court.
We all understand the fear which arises when a person or a group of persons are in danger of losing their jobs, but I believe, and many people in this country believe, that in the present dispute that fear is being played upon and inflated by others who are more interested in the political aspects of the dispute than the purely trade union interests in it. Communism is like a cancer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] People do not like to talk about it. It is an uncomfortable subject. But I remind the House again, as it was reminded some years ago, that
…the Communist Party, unlike the major political parties, has at its disposal an efficient and disciplined industrial apparatus controlled from Communist Party headquarters. No major strike occurs anywhere in the country in any sector of industry in which that apparatus fails to concern itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1613.]
Those were the words of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), the Leader of the Opposition.
This strike has political elements in it—

Mr. Bidwell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gardner: No, I will not, because time presses on. I am about to finish. This strike has political undertones and overtones. It is being led by Communist leaders.

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Bidwell: rose

Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. and learned Member is slandering Members on this side, but he will not give way.

Mr. Gardner: Who has inspired and instructed these Communist leaders? It is not without interest that in the spring


of this year nine members of the Soviet Communist Party, led by Mr. I. V. Kapitinov, the secretary of the Soviet Central Committee, were over here with the declared purpose of conferring with some members of trade unions and reorganising the Communist Party in Great Britain.
These facts ought to be known and recognised. The sooner they are brought to the attention of the country the better.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Recently I said that the Secretary of State seemed to be suffering from hallucinations, but they are nothing compared with the degree of suffering which the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) must be experiencing. It seems that the key to the solution of all our industrial problems, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, in conjunction with the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder)—an unholy legal duet—is the robing of lawyers who appear before the Industrial Relations Court and a change of nomenclature of the judge and the Official Solicitor. I wish that matters could be resolved quite as easily as that.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde also mentioned contempt. The view of Lord Devlin, a very powerful advocate of the majesty of the law, was that contempt and imprisonment for contempt had no place in what is essentially a political function of the Industrial Relations Court.
I wish right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had read the inaugural address of President Grant who, in 1869, said:
I know of no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.
We have an obnoxious law here which has been stringently executed. It has gravely endangered industrial relations, probably for a long time, and has itself brought the law into contempt. That is a matter which, as a lawyer, I regret a great deal.
The burden of what I wish to say must be related to a case within my constituency which illustrates the hopelessness of this law. I refer to Midland Cold Storage. This company was the subject of certain unfortunate observations by the Prime Minister. The right

hon. Gentleman spoke of "unprovoked bullying" by the dockers, of their having "picked out" Midland Cold Storage "quite arbitrarily", and in terms of what was called this pathetic little company which was facing this obnoxious attack by the dockers.
We ought to look at the facts of the matter. I am not suggesting that this has to be viewed in terms of absolutes, because I do not share the view expressed by many hon. Members on the Government side. However, some recognition of the dockers' case should be made if we are to begin to understand the matter and to resolve the problems that it creates.
First, the Vestey family, which has the controlling interest in Midland Cold Storage, in its industrial activities has been responsible for considerable redundancy in London docks. Contemporaneously with the opening of Midland Cold Storage it closed the Union International Wharf—it made no secret of the fact that it was embarking upon this provocative course of conduct and that it sought to recruit cheaper labour—nd, just as it closed down wharves, at the same time it was indulging in substantial property speculation. Vast profits are made in this way, and this goes unrecognised by the Government. But what are the dockers to think about this? Does not this create a difficult climate within dockland?
Then we had the quite deliberate and calculated attempts to hide the connection with Midland Cold Storage, because the Ulster Bank of Belfast holds virtually all the shares. This was disclosed in the company register. There was no mention of the fact, which is required by law that it was holding the shares as nominee and I wonder whether the Government will take any action about that. If they are so mindful of the majesty of the law, let them not be so selective about it.
Was it really a clerical error which caused this? Was it a clerical error when we are concerned with 99,998 shares worth a considerable sum of money? Is that to be the excuse? Was not this checked? An hon. Member says that he read about it in the Sunday Times. It is a pity he did not address his mind to this most important matter. We were not told by the Prime Minister about


this, because he rides off with a shield of innocence by saying that he knew nothing about it. If he knew nothing about it, the fact that he made no inquiry is of itself a condemnation of his activities.
We were not told that this organisation undertook dock work. We were not told by the Prime Minister about those days, not long ao, when, despite the difficulties which had arisen between the two sets of workers USDAW and the dockers, they stood side by side outside the dock gates in protest at the imprisonment of the five dock workers. We were not told today by the Prime Minister about the withdrawal of the action by Midland Cold Storage which literally causes the law to be seen to be utterly ridiculous.
There is a case for the dockers' viewpoint, and perhaps they may be forgiven if they recall a short verse:

"The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common
But lets the greater felon loose
That steals the common from the goose."

The dockers see vast profits being made by this company which has behaved irresponsibly and, in my view, unlawfully. These things cannot be viewed in isolation from the general scene. They must be viewed against the background of the injustice which is being done within our society, the unemployment, the insecurity, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) in an eloquent speech, the growth in the disparities of wealth and the distinction in treatment between the wealthy and the poor. None of these things is ignored by the dockers or by other industrial workers.
It is hardly conducive to a proper, sensible approach to hear the speeches of the hon. Members for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell), who is not here, and Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King). They are opposed to conciliation. They have no solutions to offer. Langstone is a constituency which I fought in 1955. It was then regarded as hopeless but, judging by the contributions of the hon. Member, it will obviously soon be a safe Labour seat. The hon. Member for Langstone rejects the Jones-Aldington proposals. I believe that in a healthier

atmosphere those proposals would have commanded the support of the dockers.
Let us hope that when Members can abjure all this jingoistic distortion of the facts, when they can reason about this matter and see that the law cannot be viewed in absolute terms, that the Government have a rôle and responsibility to produce a consensus, an atmosphere in which people can talk and reason together, they will be able not simply to pay lip-service to democracy but to play an active rôle in its preservation.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has just supplied to the House many of the details of the background of this dispute which should have been presented to the House by the Prime Minister when he purported to present the background in the debate a few days ago. I wish to return to that aspect of the matter shortly.
I should like to start with—and, indeed, to direct the whole of my remarks to it in one sense—the question which has run through the debate and which has, even more perhaps, run through the discussion which has preceded it in the newspapers and in the country: the question of the rule of law and how the Industrial Relations Act and its operation touches upon the rule of law and the rule of Parliament.
From different points of view, all of us believe that there are clashes in society that somehow have to be resolved. Those of us who are Socialists think that there are clashes which arise from the distribution of wealth, the ownership of property, and the class struggle. We believe that the clashes that arise from those matters have to be settled somehow, and many other clashes have to be settled between different sections of the community, and sometimes between different industries where interests may conflict.
I have always believed, and still believe—I believe it is the view of everyone on the Opposition side of the House—that those clashes have to be resolved by consent, if possible, and by debate and argument. We believe that those clashes must be settled finally in the House of Commons or, at any rate, that the conditions for settlement must be


laid down in the House of Commons, which is responsible to the people through election. I am advancing a proposition which I hope commands the support of everyone in the House. Certainly we do not dissent from it.
But throughout the debate hon. Members on the Government benches have been transforming the doctrine—which we do not abandon in any sense; indeed, we insist upon it—and translating it into the crudest possible terms, which cannot be accepted. That is what I want to underline. Hon. Members on the Government benches seem to say "We have the mandate. We have won the election. We have gote the vote. We have got the Act on the Statute Book. The Act must be obeyed. It cannot be selectively accepted or applied. That is the Act and that is the rule of law. That is the end of the question." But the world is not as simple as that. I imagine that none of us believes that the rules of a complex society such as ours can be discussed in that fashion alone.
Some laws command much more assent than others. The laws which state that we should drive on the left hand side of the road command almost universal assent—even if there are deviations in practice. But at the other extreme, there are laws which do not command universal assent. Perhaps the most classic example that could be taken was the law passed in the United States which prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol. That was a law which did not command universal assent, and eventually it had to be removed from the statutes of the United States on that account; but not before it had corrupted for decades afterwards, as many people believe, the whole legal system of the United States.
The contention of many of us in this controversy is that the Industrial Relations Act comes much nearer to the prohibition law in the United States which could not be enforced and which had to be repudiated by the nation as a whole than it does to laws which command universal assent. This is a very important illustration, because I believe that the maintenance of respect of the rule of law is one of the pillars that sustains a decent society.
The first reason why I say that this law does not conform with that require-

ment and why it comes nearer to the prohibition law than to the others I have referred to is what we on this side tried to explain to the Government during all the discussions on the Industrial Relations Bill. It was not merely that we said that the Bill was ill-advised and wrong-headed. A much more serious argument of ours was that the Bill was unworkable in the sense that it would not achieve the objectives that the Government said that they were seeking to achieve and unworkable in the sense that it was much more likely to produce industrial chaos than industrial peace.
We said that the Bill was unworkable in that sense because this law offends so profoundly against the spirit of trade unionism. We argued that eventually, if such a law were to be introduced, either the spirit of trade unionism would have to be rooted out or the Act would have to be abandoned.
I will give one illustration of these events which, though hon. Members opposite may dislike it, happens to be the fact. We are discussing the experience of the past months from which we have learned something. If the five dockers had not been released, a general strike in defiance of the Act would have been called on Monday by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. Pretty well the whole of the working population would have defied the Act. I imagine that the Government would not have taken any steps to deal with it.
If the Government wish to learn anything from these events, they must understand what the feeling in the country was about the imprisonment of the five dockers. If the Government wish to understand the kind of country that they aspire to rule, they must understand why there were miners from South Wales, engineers from the Midlands and many others outside Pentonville Prison to receive the dockers when they were released. It was a question of honour. If hon. Members opposite do not understand that, they do not understand anything about the trade union spirit which they are trying to quell by this Act.

Mr. Adam Butler: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a column by the former Member for Bosworth in the Daily Mirror of Friday last in which he points out that an Opinion


Research Centre poll showed that 67 per cent. of the public were against sympathetic strikes on behalf of the five dockers.

Mr. Foot: I do not accept Gallup polls on many other matters, nor do I accept it on this. Nor would I accept the previous Member for Bosworth as the final authority on trade unionism. It is impossible for the Conservatives to contend that everything is settled merely by saying that people must adopt and abide by the rule of law, because they do not do that themselves. A general strike was called by the General Council of the TUC, but no one would have taken action against the General Council, even though it was offending against the Act. What about the printers who went on strike last week? I read leading articles in the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror and many other journals denouncing people who went on strike and stressing the necessity for the Act to be invoked. But I did not notice Lord Thompson, Sir Max Aitken or Mr. Hugh Cudlip going along to the Industrial Relations Court to invoke it. They were very wise not to go because in that sense the Act is unworkable and they know it, even if the Conservative Party does not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said at the beginning of the debate that in many respects the most important aspect of the matter was that the Act is unworkable because it presented trade union leaders with an intolerable dilemma. That was underlined by the decision in the House of Lords last week. In many respects the most hopeful event that occurred last week was the publication of the Jones-Aldington Report. I do not say it is final in every form by any means. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who spelled out the arguments that many dockers will put forward about the proposals. I do not believe it is the final word on the matter, and Jack Jones does not make any such claim. But it was most hopeful that the report was produced by intelligent discussion and conciliation between gent and leaders of the trade union concerned in spite of the serious events which occurred last week.
But just as that was the most hopeful event, the most hopeless event, the most despairing and discouraging event, was the decision in the House of Lords confirming the original view of what is in the Act. That decision presents trade union leaders with a dilemma. Either they must reject the Act, in which case they will run the risk of their finances being sequestrated, or they must abide by the Act, in which case they will have to take steps, as many of them believe, to disrupt their unions. They will have to act as policemen in their own unions. [Interruption.] They will have to apply discipline—

Mr. Peter Rost: About time.

Mr. Foot: I know that is what the Prime Minister described as putting their house in order, but it means that the trade union leaders will have to take action against their members, either expelling them from the union, or taking action which might lead to the fragmentation of the union or to the establishment of many other unions. Indeed, so much has the Act encouraged breakaway militancy that the Prime Minister is regarded in dockland as an undercover, fully paid-up member of the Socialist Labour League. He is Gerry Heeley's secret weapon, his first lieutenant. This is the reality of what is happening.
What will occur in many of the great trade unions, particularly the Transport and General Workers' Union? Some of us remember the history of these matters. Some of us greatly respect the exertions made by Frank Cousins, Jack Jones and others greatly to democratise their trade union, to make individual members more responsible, because they can exercise greater powers, greater powers against the executive very often, greater powers of expressing their opinion through the machinery of the trade union. Under the Act they will be deprived of the power to continue with that work.
That is the major reason why I say that the most serious aspect of the whole Act is what it proposes that trade union leaders must do to comply with it. We are telling the trade unions under the Act to go back to the time of the Taff Vale judgment of the House of Lords. It is not so surprising that the House of Lords should be the place where the final


edict is handed down, although, of course, it is apparently interpreting what was in the Act. That does not alter the fact that we are turning back the clock to before 1906. Liabilities are being put upon the trade unions which have not existed since the Taff Vale judgment before 1906. That is well understood throughout the trade union movement.
If that course is to be followed, not in the conditions of 50 years ago but in present-day conditions, when the democratic power of those in the unions is greater, and democracy is more active and militant throughout the whole of our society, if the Government try to enforce the power of the union executives, insisting that the unions shall carry out the instructions of the court, the unions will be disrupted. That is why the unions are not prepared to follow that course. The end of that course, of making the executives of the unions the agents of the court, and—as many people in dockland, the steel industry, the coal mines and so on would regard them—as the agents of the Government, is the corporate State—and we are not prepared to have that. That is the situation implied in the Act.
We say, therefore, that the Act must be repealed. I know that some say that it can be reformed. I should very much like to see it reformed. It is against the Government's own interests not to make many proposals for reforming it, but it is very difficult to see how it can be reformed. It would certainly be necessary to deal with the question about contempt, and to do away with the Clauses that cropped up in the railwaymen's dispute, laying down the terms of service that the railwaymen had to abide by. Even more, it would be necessary to root out of the Act the decision the House of Lords reached last week, and to root out that is to root out the heart.
With the Industrial Relations Act, the Government have a tiger by the tail. It is no use saying "In the light of experience we will cut some of its claws". It is better to kill the whole beast. We say that this is probably the only way in which the reform of the Industrial Relations Act can be carried through.
What does the Prime Minister propose?

Mr. David Crouch: What does the hon. Member propose?

Mr. Foot: I have just made that proposition, if the hon. Gentleman had been listening, although I dare say he will hear it again in days to come. I was arguing, particularly because of the central feature of the Act which the House of Lords has now confirmed, which means that actions can be taken direct against the funds of the unions, that the unions are presented with this dilemma. Although it would be very wise for the Government to come forward with amendments, I do not believe there can be an amendment which does not deal with the central feature of the Bill.
What do the Government propose? After all they have some responsibility. I know that every time we ask "What are the Government going to do" they say "No, you have to tell us what you are going to do." But they happen to be the Government for a time. I know that we all get a bit irritable in the summer but the Prime Minister's form of delusion seems to be that everyone is responsible for the government of the country except himself. Indeed the Prime Minister is so confident about everything he says that he is absolutely assured that he is travelling on the right course, never to be deflected. He shows a degree of self-righteousness that would be out of place in the Archangel Gabriel.
The Prime Minister told us about this a few days before we started on the episode, when he made a speech before Conservative lawyers at Gray's Inn, a very appropriate place. This was on 21st June when we were beginning all the episodes which have led to the national dock strike and imprisonment of the dockers—all the events we have seen in the last few weeks. This was what the Prime Minister said, with his finger on the pulse of the nation, aware of what the Act meant:
But I think it both necessary and desirable to place on record the fact—it is a fact, not an opinion—that the Industrial Relations Act is fulfilling its function of creating the pressure for a different and more orderly system of handling industrial disputes.
He went on to say:
What the courts have made plain—and this is not in dispute "—
although it happened to be the matter that was just going to the Court of Appeal—
is that the trade unions do have a responsibility for actions which are carried out with


their authority and which are unfair practices as the Act defines them.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Foot: It is nothing new for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side to reveal to us that this is what they believe. We know that they voted for it on a number of occasions last year. The Prime Minister said that that was a matter not in dispute. That is the matter that is in dispute between a Government which command so little confidence and the nation.
Part of these difficulties derives from what the Prime Minister likes to call his style of government. The Prime Minister's style of government is very often to get a partial grip on some aspect of the problem and then enunciate it as if it is the secret of the universe. He started off by telling us for several weeks on end that high wages were the only cause of unemployment and he went on repeating that slogan until the change of his own policies destroyed the analysis. Then he tells us that the consent of Parliament is exactly the same thing as the consent of the people in connection with the Common Market Bill. Even though he may have convinced himself, he has convinced no one else. Now he tells us that the only issue at stake in this controversy is the rule of law.
It is not the only issue at stake. One cannot rule a great and subtle people like the British with such bovine half truths as that. They understand these things much better. They see reality in a much more rounded way. They can see the two sides of a question. They understand that some of the laws have been established by people who fought for and against the established power.
When the Prime Minister tells us that he has recited all the facts to the people about these disputes, and when we have such evidence Presented to the House as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, which the Prime Minister should have reported to us, these are the backgrounds to our disputes. It is the fear of unemployment which drives men to these measures. The Prime Minister, in his speech last week, found it easy to throw abuse at other people. He can attack the dockers as

much as he likes; no doubt they regard it as a tribute. But last week he said:
They have been resolved to take advantage of the problem, not in order to improve the livelihood of their fellow workers but in order to damage it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 1560.]
What nonsense! What right has a Prime Minister to say that dockers take such action in order to damage the interests of their fellow workers? Of course they do not. They take such action to try to Protect their own lobs, communities and rights. That is what they are fighting for, and that is why they say that they will not tolerate the Act.
I say to hon. Members opposite, who seem so reluctant to understand these things, that we on this side of the House regard respect for the law as one of the most precious assets which a civilised country has. But they are the people who have been bringing it into disrepute. We have a Prime Minister who has little understanding of the people he rules. It is because of this that he is the worst national disaster since Neville Chamberlain. Eventually the House of Commons had to deal with Neville Chamberlain. Eventually this House and the British people had to deal with a Prime Minister whose own obstinacy was so great that he would not listen to the country, to the trade unions or to the House of Commons.
Eventually Tory Prime Ministers are taught by the House of Commons that if they will not learn here they will have to learn at the polls. That is where the Prime Minister should go. He said on television—and it was the least surprising announcement of the year—that he was not going to have an election in the near future. Nobody need be surprised about that. He was not prepared to have an election about the Common Market. Apparently he is not prepared to have an election about the rule of law. But let him have an election. That is the right place for the British people to decide—to clear out Heath as they once cleared out Neville Chamberlain.

9.29 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has invited my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appeal to the country for the verdict of the people. The Government, and my


right hon. Friend as their leader, already have the verdict of the people in their favour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then have an election."] We shall in due course, and we shall prevail. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale suggested that the House should know that one cannot seek to rule the British people with subtle half-truths. He should know; he has never had the opportunity of trying to govern the British people.
He attacked my right hon. Friend for his presentation last week of the facts underlying the dispute at Midland Cold Storage. The facts that remain unassailable are these. The workers who were seeking to procure blacking were doing so while negotiations about their jobs were going on under the authority of a properly established committee. They were seeking to procure blacking in defiance of their union's policy and, in defiance of their union, they were seeking to do it in defiance of a ruling that was designed to do no more than maintain a truce, to maintain the peace, to preserve the jobs which were being threatened by the men who used that action, and they were doing it to imperil the jobs of other people instead of waiting for the properly-established procedures.
No one on this side of the House is unaware of the social problems underlying technological and economic change.—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may wave their hands about, but they have not listened to some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends underlying this very point. Having fought in my home town in South Wales two successive elections, having represented a constituency on Merseyside confronted by the problems of the docks, and having seen over many years the social problems of London's dockland—[Interruption.]—hon. Members may not like listening to this, but they must understand that the Opposition have no monopoly of social conscience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) pointed out that what was taking place in the docks was symptomatic of wider, deeper and bigger social change with which we all have to cope and with which successive Governments perhaps have done too little to cope. He underlined, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), the extent to which we must appreciate the fears aroused by economic

change. The same points were well illustrated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), each of whom proposed different approaches to the difficult underlying problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lang-stone, in a thoughtful speech about the dock labour scheme, stressed the need for efficiency and competitiveness and in this he is undoubtedly right. Whatever the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East may say, we cannot, however much we may wish to do so, contract out of a world-wide market that is changing on a world-wide scale.
My hon. Friends also pointed out the need to take account of the impact on human lives and human individuals and to do so not at the expense of a single industry but as part of a wider approach to the problem. There are important factors here underlying the consideration now being given by my right hon. Friend to the structure of redundancy payments. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater about the conclusion of employment and whether the balance of the burden of proof of unfair dismissal is right or wrong is certainly something to be looked at. It would be wrong to conclude that that is not correctly presented at the moment.
All I can say is that when the time comes for all these threads to be drawn together, for the problems of redundancy and unfair dismissal and the problems associated with those understudied by the Jones-Aldington Committee, I hope that the House will be prepared to consider them rationally and as a package introduced for the benefit of the work people of the country as a whole.
Underlying all the social problems, and ignored to a large extent by hon. Members opposite during this debate, has been the long-term problem of industrial relations and the long-term decline in our pattern of industrial relations to which a long-term solution is needed. The breakdown of the unwritten rules which had formerly sustained our industrial relations is a matter with which successive Governments have come face to face.
The original concept of trade unionism as a means whereby the weak should band together, which is still a more than


legitimate objective, has been fashioned by some people, in circumstances where they ought not to be free to do so, into a blunt instrument of industrial force; into a philosophy of "Us out—you in!"; into a philosophy of people who approach these matters politically motivated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It has been done in a spirit not of rescuing employment but of wrecking employment for their colleagues as well as for themselves.
What is more important is that all this time great corporations—which is what the trade unions are and have long been recognised to be—powerful corporations—have been wielding growing power with no pattern of responsibility or accountability to the nation as a whole. [Interruption.] This is not a novel doctrine just discovered. Mr. Andrew Shonfield, when he analysed this matter as a member of the Donovan Commission, said this, and no one can gainsay it:
If organisations are powerful enough to act the bully then very special grounds are necessary to justify the decision not to subject their behaviour to legal rules … it would be highly anomalous if the legal prejudices of an earlier generation were to … permit their actions to escape the public regulation which has come to be accepted as the common lot of corporate bodies wielding economic power.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues changed their position and appointed the Donovan Commission. The Conservative Party over a period of years undertook a review of this problem. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues went beyond what Donovan had said and published their proposals in "In place of Strife". They were proposals which the right hon. Gentleman advocated as essential and which he abandoned only in face of an undertaking given on 18th June, 1969. Since the time the right hon. Gentleman got his "solemn and binding" undertaking, the position right up to the last General Election got worse not better.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said when he introduced the Industrial Relations Bill, liberty in too many places can turn to licence. Many people in the nightly vigil watching their television screens have seen the situation turn even worse, and they have been deeply anxious at what they have seen.
In face of this situation the former Member for Southwark after the Industrial Relations Bill was first published said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] I am referring to the former Member for Southwark, Mr. Ray Gunter, who was a former Minister of Labour in the Labour Government. He then said:
I don't like hypocrisy. It's not so very long ago that the Labour Party leaders were saying to the country that legislation of some sort … was an absolute necessity. Why now they should say that any legislation—before even it has been debated—is the work of the devil is an act of hypocrisy that I don't understand.
Of course, it has been acknowledged by everyone who has considered the problem that the law has a rôle to play. I shall analyse it in a moment. No one suggested that the law could represent a magic cure of industrial relations problems. That is what was asked by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). No one suggested that it would effect a cure overnight. But the law enacted by the House is the chosen instrument of social change throughout our society, and in any democratic society the law is the foundation not just of authority, as some like to suggest, but of social justice. In the last resort it is the foundation of freedom itself. It is the bulwark of the weak against the strong. It serves as the defence of society as a whole against those who would seek to destroy it.

Mr. Bidwell: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows I was not exactly a passenger all through our debates on the Industrial Relations Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman foresaw a great deal in the course of those debates. Did he foresee the possibility of five dockers being sent to prison as a result of the activities of his National Industrial Relations Court?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Lord President and everyone else who discussed this matter throughout our debates made it clear that when a court was established with the ordinary powers to enforce its orders,
Anybody, whether he be a trade unionist or any other sort of citizen in this country, who persistently and flagrantly flouts an order of a British court of justice can in the last resort … find himself in prison. That is


no different under the Bill from what it is today, and he certainly cannot find himself there for failing to pay compensation …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 556.]
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem astonished by that. It was apparent, as my right hon. Friend stressed time and time again, that it was impossible in the last resort to prevent someone fighting his way into prison if that was his determined objective.
It is legitimate to use the law to uphold society and freedom. It is legitimate and regarded as uncontroversial in limited areas to use the law to protect consumers against manufacturers or financiers. It is legitimate to use the law, as the last Government did, to protect racial minorities against those who discriminate against them. It is admissible to use the law to protect tenants against landlords. All these matters bring the law into personal, emotionally sensitive relationships. In all of them the law is admissible, accepted, long-established and respected. Yet alone apparently in industrial relations right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to argue that it cannot be so used.
Even the argument that the law cannot be used in industrial relations is not completely accepted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last week they produced their interim policy statement. It includes a range of proposals for applying and extending the law throughout industrial relations, but law designed apparently to help one side of the bargaining from beginning to end.
Certainly it does not sustain the argument that the law has no place in industrial relations. Nor does it sustain the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that the law in industrial relations is unworkable. The hon. Gentleman sought to argue that we should conclude at this stage that the law in industrial relations is unworkable and therefore that it should not be accepted or applied at all.
Is it being presented as unworkable because it is not accepted and not acceptable, or is it being presented as unworkable because some people are determined to make it so? The latter argument is one that is wholly inadmissible in a democratic society, and the former argument is not one that can be sustained.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that, throughout the course of the Industrial Relations Bill, we on this side of the House warned that in the event of any workpeople being put in gaol as a result of contempt of the Industrial Relations Court there would inevitably be a strike of the magnitude which we saw last week? Is it not clear that we warned the Government that they were running into serious trouble because of the nature of the Act? Yet they chose to ignore the advice we gave.

The Solicitor-General: The Government chose to do no such thing. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in a moment, but now I shall continue to make my speech. The Act, as we now have it, was hammered out and prepared after years of consideration, analysis and comparative study of everything put forward by the Opposition and the Donovan Report. It is an Act—the Opposition are always unwilling to acknowledge this—which confers massive rights as well as responsibilities on trade unions and their members. It is an Act intended to be applied and it is now being applied, like any other law, by a court wholly independent—[Interruption.]It is a court as independent in every respect as the Restrictive Practices Court which the Opposition never sought to challenge. It is a court where seats are provided for representatives of the trade unions. The court will gain enormously once trade unionists are prepared to come forward and make the law work for the benefit of the country.
Moreover, the court has been designed to operate with special rules which were widely welcomed at the time, although I know my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) made a comment about it earlier this evening. Those special rules were welcomed at the time and since as making the Act sensitive to the realities of industrial relations.
Unsung and unpublicised, the court has been achieving real results. Disputes which would otherwise have gone to industrial action are now being settled because people have sought their remedies before the court. Long-standing recognition conflicts, whether within the Post Office or in the Parsons dispute, which were not created by the court, which have


always been there, are undergoing peaceful analysis with the threat of industrial action withdrawn because of applications to the court. Unfair dismissal claims, now well beyond 2,000, are being processed to the advantage of many work people. Many of those claims would have been a potential source of industrial conflict had the machinery not been available.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale drew attention to some aspects of the Heaton decision in the House of Lords which they thought created difficulty. It is not the decision of the House of Lords which creates the difficulty, nor the Act. The difficulties which they tried to analyse, the difficulties for trade union leaders of reconciling the need to maintain cohesion of the organisation and the need to maintain discipline within it, were always underlying the surface. The dilemma has always existed and is there, law or no law.
The judgment given by the House of Lords does not seek to resolve it definitively, decisively or authoritarianly in any single way for any union. It makes a decision which applies to the rule book of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It makes it clear, whether through rule books or otherwise, what authority is vested in union officials to take strike or other industrial action. It is still for unions to decide what policies they pursue regarding the delegation of functions to their shop stewards. The House of Lords decision does not require unions to follow any particular policy, but unions must decide firmly and make their policy clear. They cannot invest their local officials with considerable powers and hope to avoid responsibility by so doing. It seeks to make the responsibility plain and clear, which is what is necessary in this situation.
Hon. Members at various stages have suggested proposals for the amendment of the Act. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President made clear when he spoke on Second Reading on 14th December:
I am not vain or stupid enough to believe dogmatically that adventuring, as we are, in this new and complicated sphere, we have got the balance precisely right, even for the moment, let alone for the next 10 or 20 years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 963.]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear more than once, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made clear today, the extent to which and the timing with which the Government are prepared to consider the possibility of amendments to the Act. But it would be wholly unreasonable for such consideration to be undertaken when the print upon the Statute is barely dry, when it is scarcely possible to make a balanced assessment, when, as everyone has acknowledged, fundamental change is taking place and time is needed for everyone concerned to understand, apprehend and appreciate the problems. What is more, it would be intolerable for any group to expect still less to attempt consultation on changes of this kind under a continuing threat that they will continue to defy and disregard the law.
Among the detailed proposals put forward is that supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) that we should consider again the abolition of committal. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles suggested that one might consider interposing another body, perhaps similar to the Race Relations Board, while others have suggested transferring jurisdiction back to the ordinary courts. All these matters are not matters of surprise or novelty. They were canvassed in debate long before the Industrial Relations Act was even published as a Bill. They are matters on which it is possible to argue both ways. But they cannot in the end remove the necessity for securing in one way or another respect for and observance of the law as enacted in this House. It is that indeed which we are entitled to expect.
No Statute in modern times was more plainly heralded in any party's manifesto than the Industrial Relations Act. It was enacted wholly in line with the constitutional thoughts which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has sought to uphold for many months in the Common Market debates—the authority and sovereignty of this House in this Parliament to pass laws on behalf of the people of this country, to make laws for the people of this country. Indeed, it is also in line, remarkably enough, with the most recent


version of the constitutional theories of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, (Mr. Benn) because in his letter to The Times yesterday he said that people
 … are beginning to demand that everyone with power should be accountable for the use they make of it—whether these people are industrialists, trade union leaders, or members of Parliament, especially as they want their reforms carried through by parliamentary means.
That is exactly how this reform has been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
This is how our nation has traditionally advanced. The only people who are resisting these changes are those whose privileges depend upon the denial of these rights.
That is true in this case as well.
The question is what should be the attitude of the House as we consider the continued working of the Act. Parliament is the source of the law of the land. Sometimes also it is a scene for clash and confrontation. The people look to this House for something beyond that, however. They look to it for its capacity to remember the interests of the nation as a whole, for its capacity to reason together, however difficult that may sometimes seem, for its capacity in the last resort to represent the people—in this context, to represent the people of the country in their overwhelming desire to establish an accepted and workable framework of law for industrial relations which all of them in their hearts know to he needed. That is the approach shared by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) in his speech outlining the cool approach he was commending for the resolution of this disagreement.
Certainly no one would be happier than the Government to be able at the right time to undertake all kinds of analyses around the table with everyone who wishes to join. But such analysis and consideration of reforms must be on the right terms. We are entitled to ask for the right terms from the trade union movement and, indeed, from the Opposition. And by the right terms I mean terms that are right when considered by the country as a whole.
First, there must be a degree of candour and open dealing about these matters from the trade union movement and the Opposition alike. There must be a public recognition, as already there

is in private from trade unionists as well as from members of the Labour Party, of the need for legislation along something like these lines. There must be some kind of recognition of the extent to which, for example, the decision of the House of Lords in the Heaton case was welcomed by people within the trade union movement, in contrast with that arrived at by the Court of Appeal.
There must be a recognition in public of the extent to which it is vain and empty to talk of repealing the Act without replacing it by something very similar. There must be an acceptance also by leaders of the trade union movement, as indeed there is among many of their rank and file supporters, that the laws of the land in matters of this kind are not made at Congress House. Laws about these matters are made here, in the Palace of Westminster, by the House of Commons, and no individual, no group, no corporation, however powerful, is entitled to set them aside or to ignore them.
Yet if we examine the attitude adopted, unhappily, in public by leaders of the trade union movement, we see so far no cause for hope. The leaders of the trade union movement have got to learn to live with democracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have got to learn to live with parliamentary democracy. In what they have said over the past five years about this matter they have made their attitude clear. In 1970 they declared their opposition to any legislation which would restrict the freedom of the trade union movement. Within a week of publication of our proposals for the Bill, Mr. Scanlon made clear that his objective was to make the Bill unworkable. Even this week, unhappily—no one can deny it, for we all saw it with our own eyes—Mr. Feather said:
We do not accept that this Act is the law of the land or part of it".
Yet this is the man who accuses the Government of seeking confrontation. What nonsense it is for that kind of challenge to be laid before us from that quarter.
And what nonsense is the approach of the Opposition to all these matters. Their attitude can be summed up in a few words.
The impression which the Opposition have succeeded in creating is one of converting a


great national issue, a matter concerning the most fundamental human relationships, a matter involving the interests and well being of every member of our community, into a political football; and, having done so, they retreated from the field of play on to the terraces. Their behaviour today I indict as cynical political opportunism, compounded by cowardice. When many of the things said here today have been forgotten, long will linger the memory of their retreat from responsibility."—[OFFICIALREPORT, 3rd March. 1969; Vol. 779, c. 164.]
Those are not my words. They are the words of the hon. Member for Doncaster

(Mr. Harold Walker) in winding up the debate in which the majority of hon. Members on the Opposition side approved the proposals in "In Place of Strife". They are a condemnation of the totally irresponsible attitude of the Opposition now.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 292.

Division No. 332.
AYES
[10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Allaun. Frank (Saltord, E.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunn, James A.
Judd, Frank


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald


Armstrong, Ernest
Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Russell


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kinnock, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, Tom
Lambie, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Lamond, James


Barnes, Michael
Evans, Fred
Latham, Arthur


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry
Lawson, George


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Baxter, William
Fisher,Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ledy[...]ood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leonard, Dick


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bishop, E. S.
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Garrett, W. E.
McBride, Neil


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McElhone, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
McGuire Michael


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan Robert


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carter, Ray (Birmingh m, Northfield)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)



Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William
 Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Malialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cock's Michael (Bristol S.)
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marsden, F.


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Roy
Marshall, Dr. Edmun


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Heifer, Eric S.
Mayhew, Christopher


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Cronin, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Rt. He. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)


Davidson, Arthur
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. He. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Fin. John (Aberavon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Moyle, Roland


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Ronald King


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ogden, Eric


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'slon-on-Hull, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Doig, Peter
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Malley, Brian


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orem, Bert


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice




Orme, Stanley
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Oswald, Thomas
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinn, James


Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Padley, Walter
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Paget, R. T.
Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphael


Palmer, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Urwin, T. W.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shore. Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short,Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Sillars, James
Wallace, George


Pendry Tom
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Pentland, Norman
Skinner, Dennis
Weitzman, David


Perry, Ernest G.
Small, William
Wellbeloved, James


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Prescott, John
Spearing, Nigel
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Price, William (Rugby)
Steel, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Probert, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin



Richard, Ivor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Robertson, John (Paisley)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crouch, David
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Havers, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Barney


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Heseltine, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hicks, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Biffen, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holt, Miss Mary


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hordern, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornby, Richard


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Emery, Peter
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Pa[...]cia


Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Boscawen, Robert
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hunt, John


Braine, Bernard
Fidler, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Iremonger, T. L.


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
James, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
Jessel, Toby


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kershaw, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Kilfedder, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Kinsey, J. R.


Ch[...]chester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Hamish
Kitson, Timothy


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lambton, Lord


Cooke, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Cooper, A. E.
Gummer, Selwyn
Lane, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gurden, Harold
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cormack, Patrick
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Le Merchant, Spencer







Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Parkinson, Cecil
Stokes, John


Loveridge, John
Peel, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Luce, R. N.
Percival, Ian
Sutcliffe, John


MacArthur, Ian
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tapsell, Peter


McCr[...]ndle, R. A.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McLaren, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McMaster, Stanley
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tebbit, Norman


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Temple, John M.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maddan, Martin
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Madel, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Redmond, Robert
Tilney, John


Marten, Neil
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mather, Carol
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Trew, Peter


Maude, Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridsdale, Julian
Waddington, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Moate, Roger
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walters, Dennis


Molyneaux, James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Money, Ernie
Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wiggin, Jerry


More, Jasper
Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Morrison, Charles
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mudd, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Neave, Airey
Simeons, Charles
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sinclair, Sir George
Wood[...]utt, Mark


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Nott, John
Soref, Harold
Younger, Hn. George


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith



Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sproat, Iain
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Osborn, John

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Land Charges Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND

Ordered,
That Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid and Mr. Douglas Houghton be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,
That, in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939. as amended by the said Act of 1948 and by the Resolutions of the House of 17th November 1955, 7th March 1957, 17th May 1961, 9th March 1965 and 4th May 1971, be varied as from 1st October 1972 as follows:

(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as so amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
'1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £660 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £1,000 per annum, whichever is the less:

Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,190 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £1,500 per annum, whichever is the less';
(b) for paragraph 2 of the said Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £375 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £750 per annum, whichever is the less:

Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need,

the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £595 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £925 per annum, whichever is the less';
c) in paragraph 2A of the said Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:—
the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £375 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £750 per annum, whichever is the less:

Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £595 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £925 per annum, whichever is the less'.—[Sir R. Cary.]

SEA FISHERIES

10.12 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
I am glad that it is agreed that we should discuss at the same time the Motion dealing with the White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order. Both orders involve support for the industry, and if past debates are any guide I think it will be easier for my hon. Friend to reply in an orderly way if he does not have to tie his remarks to one Motion rather than the other. Having said that, I shall deal separately with the two orders, starting with the short and simple research and development grants order, and then dealing at greater length with the in-shore subsidies.
The White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order has only one substantive provision, which I can explain very briefly. Although paragraph 2 of the order refers to a limit of £2 million imposed by the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1970, that was a consolidation Act and the limit was in fact imposed in 1962. It was a limit not on any annual grant, which is taken care of in annual Estimates, but on the aggregate amount that could be paid.
Not surprisingly this sum, large though it may then have appeared, has now been


fully taken up, and if we are to continue to add any Government contribution to what the Authority devotes out of its levy income to research and development, then this order is essential.
Hon. Members will recall that in reply to Questions on Tuesdy, made an announcement about the future of the White Fish Authority and they may reasonably be asking what connection there is with this Order. The short answer is that, if we approve this Order, we are merely removing a constraint which has to be eased, even if one was not looking beyond the end of the present financial year.
Beyond that, the position is, as I made clear in my statement, that we see as among the continuing essential functions of the Authority the research and development which it conducts for the industry. We regard that as very important. The scale depends primarily on the amount which the Authority, in consultation with industry, decides to devote from its levy income to research and development.
The extent to which its programme can be approved and grant aided in future will have to be considered annually as it is now. That is what the order enables us to do.
The inshore subsidy scheme is in its old familiar annual form. It deals with subsidy arrangements for inshore and herring vessels for the next 12 months. The deep sea arrangements are dealt with under a separate scheme which has a further year to run.
Before explaining our proposals for the inshore fleet, I would like to set briefly before the House the facts about the economic state of the industry on which our proposals are based.
In 1971 United Kingdom landings of white fish and herring from inshore vessels were £29·5 million compared with £22·8 million in 1970; the comparable figure for 1969 was £19·3 million.
Thus over a period of 3 years earnings have risen by about £10 million, that is by over 50 per cent. This year up to the end of June they have risen by £4·1 million, that is another 30 per cent. up on last year. At the end of the day, however, it is net profits which are important to owners.
In common with other industries, fishing has had to face rising costs.
Even so, the average profits of United Kingdom vessels after depreciation have more than doubled over the past three years rising from about £1,000 in 1969, to £1,400 in 1970 and to £2,200 last year. In the face of these figures. I do not think that it can be denied that the industry's financial position has improved tremendously.
It is even better than a year ago, and I think I should remind the House that when my hon. Friend introduced the 1971 scheme he said this:
I think it can reasonably be claimed that this is a pretty generous settlement, and this will have to be borne in mind when future schemes are considered …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1970; Vol. 821, c. 1620.]
Therefore, in deciding this year's settlement, the Government have therefore not only looked at the 1971 profits but have taken into account the rise in profits over the last few years.
I think it can be fairly said that the last few years have helped to build up confidence within the inshore industry about the future; owners have taken advantage of improvement grants to modernise and increase the efficiency of their vessels, and there has been no shortage of applications for grants and loans for building new ones.
That is the background against which we had to look at the present annual subsidy expenditure of some £1·5 million—all of it going to the inshore fleet, because the deep sea subsidy has vanished under the formula which relates it inversely to operating profits.
This £1·5 million supplements boat earnings, on average by under 4 per cent. and so represents a small proportion of income.
While recognising that owners tend to calculate subsidy receipts as a part of their profits rather than of total income, we have obviously had to look at this in terms of the industry's buoyant returns from the market, and in the scheme before the House we propose to reduce the subsidy level by about one-fifth. This will be achieved by reducing the present rates generally by around 20 per cent. In view of recent profitability I consider that this is a very fair settlement for the industry.
It is surely satisfactory to be able to record that an industry is prospering and so be able to reduce a subsidy. This is what one should always set out to do. The industry should congratulate itself on the fact that it is in a position which allows this to be done.
The provisions of the scheme, apart from the rates, are similar to last year's. There is, however, one change in the conditions which I should explain. The definition of "gross proceeds" in paragraph 1(2) has been amended to allow any earnings additional to those from the catch to be taken into account in determining whether a particular voyage should qualify for voyage rates.
This will alter the effect under paragraph 12 (2) and (3). Where these additional earnings are greater than the value of the white fish and herring catch the voyage or daily rate will not be applicable; instead stonage rates will be paid on the catch within a maximum of the appropriate daily rate. This would operate, for example, in the case of angling party charters or salvage payments, receipts from which ought obviously, in fairness to owners generally, to be brought into the reckoning. We do not expect that there will be many instances where this new provision will apply. Otherwise, as I have said, the scheme conditions are unaltered.
Before leaving the subsidy scheme there are one or two issues which I know are of concern at present to the inshore industry on which I should say a word. I recognise that, although the picture at which we have rightly and properly been looking when taking our short-term decision on this year's subsidy is clear and bright, there are some worries in the industry. Some of these are justifiable and some, I would venture to say, are not. One which my right hon. Friends and I are taking very seriously is the problem that would arise if our deep sea fleet were so excluded from the grounds on which they at present rely that there was a real threat of additional fishing effort and consequent difficulties in nearer waters. I shall not say today what answers would have to be given to questions which are at present hypothetical, but I want to put on record that British inshore interests have been continually in the thoughts of my noble

Friend the Minister of State and myself during our recent negotiations with Iceland.
Other doubts in the inshore industry relate to membership of the EEC. I am not thinking primarily of rights within British limits, for responsible opinion in the industry now recognises that the settlement which the Government achieved in the entry negotiations took proper care of their essential interests. What is more it will enable Governments which succeed this one to continue to do just that. Where there is inevitably some uncertainty is in arrangements for marketing and support.

Mr. Norman Buchan: How on earth can the Minister say that he can guarantee that proper care will be taken? After 1982 the delegation ends and we have no means of preventing it.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member always gets himself bogged down on all this. He knows perfectly well that that is not the way the Community works and that there will be every opportunity for making satisfactory arrangements after 1982. It does no service to the industry for him to try to cast doubts on what will happen after 1982.
There are areas here in which the Community regulation to implement the common fisheries policy have yet to be made, but I give the assurance that we shall keep closely in touch with the inshore industry, as with other sectors, when proposals are under consideration.
I thought it right even at the risk of getting out of order to look a little ahead, but I shall conclude by emphasising that it is not slanted in any way on any particular assumption about the future. It is the straightforward result of a review such as has been held annually for some 20 years in the case of the inshore fleet. We have found this time an industry which in 1971 has further improved on its already good results in 1970, and we have taken what I am sure is the right decision for the new subsidy period which begins next month. It is in the firm conviction that the inshore industry is in a strong position, and wishing every good fortune to the fishermen who fish for their living in the inshore waters, that I corn-mend the orders to the House.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Fred Peart: I agree with the Minister that the two orders should be taken together. In the research and development grants order the Minister is increasing by £1 million the limit of £2 million imposed by Section 23 of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1970. The Act permits this increase, and we accept that it is right.
There is a problem here which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. On 18th July he made a statement in a Written Answer about the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. He said that
the authority and the board should continue under existing law for a period provisionally set at five years.
But he warned the House that there was a problem. He said:
In considering the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board my right hon. Friends and I have had to take into account not only the position in this country but also what form of organisation will best serve our fishing and fish-using industries within the enlarged European Community. The Community's regulation foresee the establishment of a network of producers' organisations which, if fully achieved, would leave no separate regulatory role for independent national bodies like the board and the authority. On the other hand there are functions for which continuing provision may be needed."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 18th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 64.]
There is still uncertainty about our entry into Europe and how it will affect the White Fish Authority and other statutory organisations which have been administered by various bodies under the umbrella of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Therefore, while we agree that this is a right step, there is still uncertainty.
The second order outlines a scheme for operating subsidies for the next 12 months. This will apply to inshore white fish vessels under 80 ft. in length and all herring vessels. As my hon. Friends who speak for various sections of the industry who are present—[Interruption.] It is a pity that there are not more here tonight, but we understand the reason. Unfortunately we cannot have a major debate on the matter. We are confined to the orders. Perhaps it is a pity that we are not having a major debate on the fishing industry, but I am not complaining to the Minister about that. He has done his best in presenting the orders

and he has opened up wide avenues of discussion.
This is not a matter that concerns the deep sea fleet, but inevitably what has happened to that will affect the inshore fishing industry. We have figures presented to us on an earlier occasion by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has said that in 1969 the industry was earning about £19·3 million. That increased in 1970 to £22·8 million and in 1971 to £29·5 million. I understand that in the first six months of this year earnings had increased by £4.1 million, which represented a 30 per cent. increase over the position in 1971. Profits have increased after depreciation, rising in 1971 to £2,200 per vessel, double the figure for 1969.
The Minister's case for a cut is that the industry is in a strong financial position and that the reduction in the subsidy level is therefore justified. The Government are pledged to reduce all subsidies, although we have some strange examples. That policy has been reversed in industry and development areas, one of which I represent. The Government have had to change their policy overnight. However, the Minister believes that there should be a reduction and no doubt he is anxious for the whole of the subsidy to be phased out. He has not deployed that case tonight. On many occasions, being the representative of a fishing port, Lowestoft, he has chided Governments for cutting subsidies. Tonight he plays a different role. I do not say that it is a right role.

Mr. Prior: No one will be more delighted than I when the inshore fishing industry is so prosperous that it does not need a subsidy just as the middle and distant water fleets are not getting a subsidy because of their prosperity.

Mr. Peart: I would not say that the industry generally was as prosperous as the right hon. Gentleman makes out. When one thinks of inflation and the costs which fishermen have to bear—and this applies to other sections of the fishing industry and agriculture—the Minister may well be wrong in his assumption. However, he is to reduce the subsidy by approximately 20 per cent. I have merely stated what I thought was Government philosophy—that industry must stand on its own feet. But the Government have had to reverse that policy in


many important industrial activities. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should be extremely cautious about what is happening in the fishing industry.
The Minister may have had approval from the fishing industry, and no doubt there have been consultations. I understand that the cut in subsidy will save £300,000 in a full year and £125,000 in the present calendar year. There is to be a reduction of subsidy from £1½million to £1,200,000. I should like to know whether the industry has agreed to what is proposed. It is strange that the industry should agree to a cut of this size. There are difficulties and the Minister must bear them in mind. He has warned the House of the effect of the Icelandic Government's decision to cut our right to go into their waters to the extent of 50 miles. He has rightly said that this could lead to over-fishing in waters close to this country.
The Minister should be extremely careful about his estimate of profitability in the industry. I am not trying to play the role of a modern Cassandra, but one must be realistic. It is my northern caution which makes me say this, but the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, is a Scot and he should be canny about this.
There are worries about this matter. A Press notice of the Ministry of Agriculture dated 28th July states:
Prohibition of fishing for herring off the North Yorkshire Coast. An order prohibiting fishing for herring within our fishery limits between the Tees and Flamborough Head was laid before Parliament today. It comes into force on 20th August and covers the period 20th August to 30th September, 1972".
As the Ministry rightly said,
prohibition is a conservation measure designed to protect and assist in re-establishing spawning stock in the central North Sea.
Conservation is a problem. We could have a problem of over-fishing in our inshore fishing areas.
The Minister mentioned the question of Europe. I do not want to reopen the argument about Europe—[Interruption.] It is not a bore, I assure the Minister's PPS, who no doubt serves the right hon. Gentleman well. We did not have a proper debate on this matter during the passage of the European Communities Bill. Although this is a matter for the Treaty of Accession, and despite what the Minister said in reply to one of my hon. Friends, no guarantees have been given.
The inshore fishing fleet in many parts of the country faces worries and uncertainties. Added to that it faces competition in areas near to our coast from foreign fleets seriously over-fishing and causing difficulties to our home fleet. So this is an important matter which cannot be dismissed lightly. We shall come back to this, but not this evening.
What has been agreed or not agreed on Europe will inevitably affect the long-term prospects of our inshore fishing fleet. Then there is the argument about inflation and costs which will affect our fishermen. While it may be argued that they are making profits—and the figures have been given—our fishermen also face high costs. Let the right hon. Gentleman exercise caution. We are not opposing the orders; we merely ask him to be sensible and not starry-eyed, because he could well be wrong and a subsequent Government may have to face the consequences.
For these reasons we believe that the Minister, after consultation with the industry, has made a case, but we are rather sceptical about it. We are prepared to let him have the orders, we offer the suggestions I have made and we hope that the Under-Secretary of State when he replies will be constructive and not seek to make a party point.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: My right hon. Friend the Minister in introducing the orders said that the second and more important of the two deals only with vessels under 80 ft. in length, namely inshore vessels. Last year when similar orders were introduced the level of subsidies was maintained as in the previous year. This year there is to be a cut of about 20 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is satisfied that allowance has been made this year for the increased cost of constructing and operating vessels?
The Fisheries Organisation Society, which is to be congratulated on organising the inshore fishermen, has pointed out that increased costs in the past year averaged about 11 per cent. If there is to he a cut in the subsidy of 20 per cent., that means that vessels will have to make at least 31 per cent. to make any profit at all in the coming year. I hope my hon. Friend will assure me that he has allowed for this in the level of subsidies


contained in the order. I remind him that about 60 new vessels of 40 ft. or more have been constructed this year. They will not be in operation until next year and therefore will not benefit by the profitability which has been realised by the industry in the last two or three years. I hope he will bear their future in mind.
A ridiculous statement has been referred to in the fishing Press that the cut in subsidies this year is to pay for fishery protection off Iceland in the future. That must be arrant nonsense, and I hope the Minister will make it clear that it is indeed nonsense.
That brings me briefly to the question of Iceland which has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend and by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). Both made the point, which I hope is understood clearly by all the inshore men round our coasts, that if Iceland gets away with this extension of limits, distant and middle water vessels will inevitably fish closer to our coasts and this will seriously affect our own inshore vessels. On this matter the industry is as one. Often there are differences between sections of the industry, but here the whole industry—the catching side, the fish merchantmen and the distributing side—are in this together. They will all be affected by decisions of the Icelandic Government and, above all, many millions of housewives will feel the direct result in the increased price of fish. As these proposed limits are due to come into operation on 1st September when the House will be in recess, I will briefly put one or two questions to my right hon. Friend on this matter.
I understand that during the next few days the Government will be seeking an injunction in the International Court. Have they the support of and have they co-ordinated activities with the West German Government which are also concerned? If we obtain the injunction, will our fishing trawlers be provided with adequate protection when fishing on the high seas? I suggest that this protection should be given not only in terms of surface vessels but also by helicopters. There is a vessel H.M.S. "Engadine" which would be suitable for this task and whose helicopters could warn our trawlers when Icelandic vessels were in the vicinity.
I very much hope a settlement will be reached with Iceland. I believe the dispute will be detrimental not only to ourselves but above all to Iceland. Therefore, I hope that common sense will prevail. We are after all discussing a problem which will arise between now and the summoning of the Law of the Sea conference in 1973–74. It is only an interim problem and I hope the good sense of the Icelandic Government and people will prevail in the end and that they will come to an agreement on an interim solution before we enter a second cod war which could only adversely affect the traditional friendship which has existed between our two nations.
The British fishing industry should prepare for a gradual extension of the limits in favour of coastal States, as I believe that this will be the eventual result of the Law of the Sea conference. I suggest that this extension will be phased over ten years or so, and therefore the industry, both the distant industry and the inshore industry, should make preparations now for what may happen in the future. However, we cannot be coerced by unilateral action on the part of Iceland which would prejudice the whole of the important subjects which are to be discussed at that forthcoming Law of the Sea conference.
I am grateful for having had this opportunity to make these few remarks since, as we all know, this matter will be settled one way or the other on 1st September when the House will be in recess. I thank my right hon. Friend for the order which is to introduce off the Yorkshire coast a closed herring season from 20th August to 30th September. It will be well received by inshore fishermen in that part of the country.
When we debated inshore fishing in July, 1971, the discussion lasted from 11.09 p.m. until midnight; our debate on deep-water fishing in November, 1971. lasted from 11.19 until 11.59 p.m. Now we are debating these orders for a period of 1½ hours. I suggest that this is not good enough and that we should return to the tradition of having a full day's debate on the fishing industry each year. I put this to my right hon. Friend the Minister now and I hope that through the usual channels it will be arranged that we shall have a full day's debate


on our return from the Summer Recess when the Icelandic situation will be foremost in our minds. I hope that in making this suggestion I shall have the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In conclusion, I wish to ask my right hon. Friend to keep in touch with those of us who represent the major fishing ports during the recess if the Icelandic situation deteriorates. I support these orders and congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done for the industry during his tenure of office.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I agree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about the length of time we have to discuss fishing topics. It is a pity that in agreeing to take the two orders together we cannot double the time available. I appreciate that that would not suit the Minister since, by proceeding in this way, he is getting two orders for the price of one.
The Minister in introducing the orders stressed the buoyancy of the industry, how well it was doing, how satisfied he was with the earnings and how it had enabled him to reduce the subsidies. We see from the figures that since 1969 earnings have risen from £19·3 million to £29·5 million last year, and it is reported that earnings this year are up by 30 per cent. However, behind these figures, which appear to be extremely satisfactory, is the worry that these earnings come entirely from increased prices.
If we look at the catching side of the industry we find that, although in general there has been a marginal increase in catches—for Britain as a whole the increase is from 761,000 tons to 762,000 tons—this represents for England and Wales a 5 per cent. reduction in catch whereas in Scotland there is an increase of 10 per cent.
In spite of these reduced catches in England and Wales, earning capacity has gone up by 19 per cent. The increased catches in Scotland of 10 per cent. have brought increases in earnings of some 35 per cent. We are seeing here an increase in profitability not in the sense that the fleet is catching more fish but in the sense that more money is being taken from the consumer.
I was disappointed by what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in introducing

these orders just as I was last year when he brought in the previous orders. He did not spend any time dealing with the price of fish to the consumer. He did not say how he saw it being stabilised, how it had increased over the year and what steps he was taking to ensure that the consumer got a fair deal.
These orders are concerned primarily with subsidy to producers. As a result the Minister is limited by the rules of order to the terms of the orders. However, hon. Members on the back benches would not object if he widened the area of discussion by slipping in one or two bits and pieces which were outside the scope of the orders, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be adept at doing that if he wished to. I hope that he will not use the rules of order as an excuse for not considering the consumer. The consumer should have an important part in any discussion of these matters yet he is always left out of it.
We should consider how much the consumer is paying to whom. Who really gets the increased earnings? I am not altogether satisfied that it is the fisherman. Is it the middle man? Is it the processor, the man who buys in the market and processes or simply ships from one part of the country to another? How far are his increased earnings reflected in the price of fish? To what extent is the retail getting a cut? Do we get value for money in relation to the catch? People in our fishing ports have a right to ask. The difference between the price of fish realised on the quayside and in the retail shops is considerable. What is the markup? I have some knowledge of the industry. It is not on interest in the usual sense because I gain no money from it. But I have relatives and close friends in the industry, and I have my suspicions about how much is taken from the consumer's pocket and how much value is given him for that money.
I want to take up the Minister on his point about grants and loans for the building of vessels. He said that there was no shortage of applications, and that may be the case. But I wonder why it is that the right hon. Gentleman, apparently, is the only Minister in the Government not to have learned the lessons of the past.
Paragraph 132 of the report of the White Fish Authority draws attention to the fact that at the time of the last order


dealing with building grants there was a 10 per cent. cut in the rate of grant for fishing vessels. It points out that there are difficulties as a result of changes of Government policy in other directions. When the Government cut grants for industry generally in their full flight of shooting lame ducks, they included the fishing industry. They said that it had to take cuts in building grants since cuts were being made right across the board. But the Government have reversed their previous thoughts. They have returned to the system of investment grants. Almost every day they boast of the way they have given unprecedented help with a view to bringing industry generally out of the trough of depresion. Yet the fishing industry is not involved in this.
The White Fish Authority makes the point clearly. Many fishing ports are situated in development areas and the introduction of grants at the rate of 20 per cent. and 22 per cent. in capital expenditure incurred on buildings, plant and machinery and mining works worsens the fishing industry's relative position.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Has the hon. Member made any assessment of the orders in the yards for fishing vessels since these cuts were brought in?

Mr. Hughes: I have not made any assessment of the reduction in applications or the reduction in the number of vessels being built as a result of the 10 per cent. cut. If the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon) cares to read the report of the White Fish Authority, he will see that the 10 per cent. cut worsens the industry's position vis-à-vis other industries, which is regrettable. That is a straightforward comment from the White Fish Authority.
It is surprising that that should happen at a time when we all know that the fishing industry is facing uncertainty and is facing indirectly the threat from Iceland that all our vessels now fishing off Iceland will be driven into our home shores. If those vessels displace the middle water fleet, that fleet will be forced in on the inshore fleet and so on. We will get not only theoretical poaching off Iceland but actual poaching off our coast where there are all kinds of difficulties relating to pots and the size of vessels.
The situation is not clear. Any Minister who claims to have an interest in the industry should at least have asked at Cabinet level for the same investment grants as any other part of industry. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food will not take the same kind of view as the Minister for Transport Industries, who said that the nationalisation of the railways and other industries was a complete fiasco. That remark shows that he does not speak for the industry for which he is Minister. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food speaks for the industry for which he is Minister and that he has been fighting in the Cabinet against the 10 per cent. cut. However, I regret he has said that he is not at this stage prepared to restore the 10 per cent. cut which he made on a previous occasion.
Although we are accepting these orders, and we recognise that the cut of £300,000 in relation to the total earning capacity of the industry is not much, we hope that the Minister will be flexible in his approach because of the difficulties and uncertainties facing the industry, and that he will approach the matter with an open mind and be prepared to consider the points we have raised tonight. With the Icelandic situation, we are likely to face steep price increases, and experience of the recent past has shown us that retailers appear to put up their prices within 24 hours of difficulties. I cannot imagine how the difficulties with Iceland can have such an immediate affect on prices. However, the public always has to face price increases immediately difficulties arise.
I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to how he can protect the consumer from increased fish prices. His Ministry represents not only the producers but the consumers. I believe the Minister lays far too much stress on the producing side and far too little on the consumer side.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Because of the time we can make only a few cursory comments on the Minister's speech. First, I emphasise that we would like more time for fishery debates. I hope the Minister will speak to his Cabinet colleagues about the matter. Secondly, I am pleased to


see that the Minister has increased the research and development moneys from £2 million to £3 million to the White Fish Authority. In view of the Minister's past behaviour, when he was an arch critic of the White Fish Authority—he, like myself, thought of abolishing it—are we to take it that he now feels confidence in the authority? I sincerely hope so in view of what he is doing.
I ask the Minister to attempt to achieve what I believe to be the most important activity of the authority at the moment—the development of fish farming. As a result of the dangers of the distant waters and of our being pulled back into our home waters, we must look at fishing not so much as a hunting industry as in the past, with all its dangerous work in the deep Arctic, but as farming. No more than in deep coal mining do we now expect to send our sons into the deep fishing of the Arctic, which is dangerous and difficult. We should attempt to do far more fish farming to get supplies of fish on to the slabs in the shops.
The other order cuts back Government money. It is somewhat sardonic that a Conservative Minister should be cutting back subsidy in view of the past history of the fishing industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman watch out for the ups and downs of the industry? Catches and making money notoriously go in cycles. Next year could be bad, particularly in view of the Iceland difficulties and of our entry into the EEC and other happenings. Without being a Cassandra, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I caution the right hon. Gentleman to keep a canny eye on this matter and to be prepared to give back some help to the fishing industry.
I represent a deep sea fishing port but I find it fascinating—indeed, I am quite pleased—that our inshore fishermen catch over half the fish put on the slabs for the housewife. Their achievements, reflected in the statistics, are staggering. On behalf of the housewife, I give thanks to them.
Do not let us for a moment, however, think that the fishermen get paid anything like a proper percentage of the price in the shop. That is by no means so. No one can make more money by

saying on the quayside, "You must pay more for the fish." We have auctions, which are keen and competitive. The additional cost is tacked on to the fish as it moves stage by stage to the kitchen. The Minister, who is supposed to be the guardian of the housewife, should set up an inquiry into how fish gets to such astronomical prices on its way from the vessel.
The earnings at first-hand sales at the quayside last year were just under £30 million and the figure has risen to £37·1 million. On that basis the right hon. Gentleman says that the fishermen are making a lot of money and the Government must cut back the subsidy. I do not think things are as simple as that. Contrary to other old-fashioned basic industries like mining and steel, shipbuilding and textiles, fishing is actually gaining manpower. More men are now going fishing; more vessels are at sea than there were 12 months or two or five years ago, and this is encouraging. The number of vessels over 40 ft., for example, has increased. On that basis the right hon. Gentleman cuts back. Does he honestly think that £2,200 a vessel is all that much? Many are family vessels. The payment is £40 a week but in a vessel there may be two, three or four or five adults working as a family, particularly in Scotland. I do not think this is quite the basis on which to invest a fleet for the future.
There has been very little hullabaloo or discussion about these cut-backs, as distinct from what happened under the Labour Government when we cut back in this way. The industry has behaved like mice—not like church mice, as there has been no squealing or anything like that. Year after year, however, I have found it fascinating that in debates of this nature, when we have done this sort of thing, there has been an enormous concatenation of complaints; but not tonight.
I should be out of order in discussing the EEC limits and the Icelandic situation, but those are important factors. They will push back our deep-sea vessels into middle waters and back further into inshore waters. There are big question marks about the future of the men fishing within these narrow limits as compared with the deep sea men.
The Department may present a good case for cutting back subsidies as the


industry is doing so well, but the Government should bear in mind the ups and downs. This year it is up; next year it could be down. The Minister knows this, so I beg him to keep it in the forefront of his mind.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Some harsh words have been spoken tonight about lame ducks. I shall speak in support of the Government on the introduction of the orders.
The 10 per cent. extra subsidy on the building of fishing vessels was temporary anyway. My right hon. and hon. Friends were quite right to remove it when they did, although it created a certain crisis of confidence for a short time in the yards. But the yards are now busy again and the fishing industry as a whole is doing extremely well.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) spoke of doubts and fears about the future. This is always possible, and doubts and fears are often more prevalent when something is going well than when it is going badly. The hon. Member ought to remember, however, that the present Government are spending a great deal more money in developing the fishing harbour at Aberdeen than the Labour Government ever thought of doing and that the present Government's support for the fishing ports, in Scotland at any rate, is extremely generous.
Having said that, it is a little difficult for my hon. Friends who speak for the industry to cheer enthusiastically when Government support for it is withdrawn. That is one of the worst aspects of wholesale Government support. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) complained that orders such as these were always badly received under the Labour Government. But the truth is that they always did the wrong thing at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.
In this case, I am extremely pleased that from now on the orders are to be administered from Edinburgh. This is a very great step forward for our industry.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: In discussing the first order the Minister mentioned the Written

Answer to a Question on 18th July concerning the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, in which he said
The major uncertainties affecting the future of the authority and the board have now been removed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 65.]
That is far from being the case. In his answer, the Minister indicated the uncertainty of the problems associated with joining the EEC and the future of the White Fish Authority bearing in mind the Commission's rules and regulations. But there is, in particular, a tremendous degree of uncertainty among those employed by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board.
Like Lord Vestey with Midland Cold Storage, my trade union—the Transport and General Workers' Union—has a subidiary, the Association of Clerical, Technical and Supervisory Staffs. We organise the office and other workers at the White Fish Authority in London and Edinburgh and those who work for the Herring Industry Board. This is what the officer responsible for the organisation in the London area states:
Since you wrote to me we have of course had the Minister's statement together with the statement by the White Fish Authority which at this stage only indicated in very broad terms the proposals for the unification both of the various White Fish Committees and the Herring Board.
Our current difficulties are that although this situation could well have been anticipated no detailed information about the Authority's future structure etc. is yet available and the current forecast is that we will be unlikely to get any realistic information from the Authority prior to the next statutory meeting which I believe is on September 13th. Needless to say, the situation whereby a Minister demolishes a workpeople's employment and then leaves a complete vacuum in information terms for approximately two months is extremely unsatisfactory.
When discussing the future of this important statutory authority there is an extra obligation upon the Government, whatever their political complexion, to take the workpeople into their confidence and discuss their employment prospects with them. It is deplorable that there have not been discussions between the trade union and the authority.

Mr. Prior: The authority is an independent employer of labour. It is the authority's responsibility to do this. I have carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am willing to facilitate


discussions between the authority and its employees and to help in any way I can. However, I repeat that it is primarily the job of the authority to do this and it is not for the Government.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for that undertaking by the Minister which I know that he will honour. The point is that it is a strange situation in which the Ministry is responsible by Statute for authorising the payment of moneys and for the raising of levies and paying subsidies to keep an organisation in existence, but when it comes to changing the direction in which that body is travelling the responsibility is on the body itself and not on the Government which has just decreed the change.
What plans are there for research into the problems which will face the inshore fleet whether or not the Icelandic Government are successful in their attempt to extend their limits to 50 miles? In particular, what consultation takes place with fishing authorities in other countries, particularly those that fish the southern North Sea? I am thinking in particular of the effect of the Dutch Delta scheme upon some of the nursery grounds for flat and other fish in Dutch waters fished by British, Belgian and Dutch fishermen and on occasion by German and Norwegian fishermen.
The Delta plan is a plan to reclaim a lot of land following disastrous North Sea floods. It involves the closing of many of the tributaries of the Scheldt and Rhine. Some of them were industrial sewers, some brackish, but some were swept and kept clean by the sea. One of them—the Oosterscheldt—has been a primary nursery ground, particularly for flat fish. The fish have spawned and have grown there in four or five years into a size at which they can be fished and then have come out again into the southern North Sea.
Part of the Delta plan was to enclose the Oosterscheldt. I know that this is a googly, but will the Government if necessary write to me about any discussions which may have taken place with the Dutch on the problem and say whether it has been considered by the fishing industry? Have the various countries bordering the North Sea come together to discuss their conservation plans and, in particular major schemes such as the one I have mentioned.
Whatever happens about Iceland, there will have to be more international cooperation and more and more research into the type of vessels, the type of mesh and the periods during which we shall have to prevent fishing in particular areas. This will become more important as the pressures of world population increase the demand for fish as a primary item in people's diet.
Like the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) I share the Minister's hope that even at this late hour the Icelandic Government might think particularly about what the future holds for them if they turn down agreement with Britain, and what it will mean for people in this country whose livelihoods depend on the issue. We know that the "Miranda" will go back on station and that the Royal Navy will patrol the area. Is the Minister satisfied that even more help will be needed, particularly in the height of winter off the coast of Iceland? This applies particularly to meteorological reports because of the conditions which can suddenly blow up as they did when we lost three vessels in recent years. While there have been stability tests of all sorts, the problems of weather still exist.
May I bowl the junior Minister another googly? My union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, has said that if the Icelandic Government go ahead with their ban it will not land any fish from Iceland or from Icelandic vessels with exports to Iceland. May we have an undertaking from the Minister that in that event none of the parties to the contracts will make application to the National Industrial Relations Court in relation to actions for unfair industrial practices or improper interference with commercial contracts?

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I suspect that after that googly the Minister will regard the pitch as it was at Leeds last week. We are grateful to the Minister for setting the orders in the context of the fishing industry as a whole, including the question of the White Fish Authority. We have rare opportunities to discuss the fishing industry and the hon. Member for Haltemprise (Mr. Wall) is right when he says that the time is more than overdue when we should have


a fuller discussion on the fishing industry, especially in view of the international situation which now faces it.
The cut in subsidy is genuinely based on an assessment of the best fishing experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) said, it has been demonstrated how inappropriate it is to base support for the industry on figures of profit. Therefore we want to know whether the Minister is basing his case entirely on the inadequate concept of profitability. At least, to do so would be to base it upon one factor affecting the whole of the British industry. Or, as some suspect, and after the Minister's speech I more than suspect, is it a double-pronged attack in two similar directions, one towards his own basic policy and the other towards Europe?
I stress this because the Minister was right to say that he always welcomed cuts in subsidy. He has been honest in the past about this. It was in a debate on orders concerning the fishing industry that he enunciated his basic philosophy when he said that he hoped the time would come when there would be an end to all subsidies, both in fisheries and agriculture. He said that the time had come when prices should rise, because the British people had been mollycoddled for too long with cheap food. [Interruption.] I have used this quotation before, and I intend to use it again.
The trouble is that these damned orders come so late at night that the debates on them are never reported in the Press next day to put on record that the right hon. Gentleman wants to reduce all subsidies on agriculture and fisheries and that he wants prices to increase because he believes that the British nation has been mollycoddled for too long on cheap food. Therefore, all his protestations, that he does not like prices to go up, whether fish prices or beef prices, are denying his own philosophy. It would be more helpful to tell the British housewife that he wants higher prices. If he has changed his philosophy perhaps he will let us know. If not he must take this, much as he may dislike it.
It is against the background of a 10 per cent. increase in production in Scot-

land, emerging as a 39 per cent. increase in prices, that the right hon. Gentleman looks at the cut in subsidies. In other words, he is not basically concerned with the industry and the needs of the community. He is concerned only with subsidy in this narrow concept of the profitability or otherwise of the people in the industry. If their income is too low, he says "Let us subsidise it." He must come on to the idea of seeing it as an important industry for the nation. Profitability might increase, and yet it might still be proper to increase the subsidy, because that is what the industry might require in the interests of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter not from the narrow point of view of increasing the income of the fishermen, important as that is. The question is close to me because I sometimes think that half the fleet in Aberdeen are my cousins. The Minister must think of the nation.
The matter is doubly important when we set it against other aspects of food consumption in this country. Between the last quarter of 1969 and the last quarter of 1971 fish consumption dropped by about 25 per cent, from 4·1 lb. per head per annum to 3·2 lb. We see an increase in fishing production and a trebling of profitability but a drop in consumption of fish. The corollary of the increased price of fish is that people are eating less fish. At the same time, the increase in beef prices has cut back meat consumption.
The right hon. Gentleman's policies, based upon high prices, are drastically affecting the nation's diet. They are especially affecting the low income groups. Between the last quarter of 1969 and the last quarter of 1971 prices increased as follows: cod fillets, 53·6 per cent.; haddock fillets, 31 per cent.; smoked haddock, 33 per cent.; and herring—the poor man's diet in the old days—40 per cent.
That is the background. At a time when the price of beef is going through the ceiling it is very serious to see the price of fish—which some people wrongly regard as a substitute for beef—also going up.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: If people are eating less fish and also less meat, what are they eating?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member should know that. They are eating too much starch.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member should not give these figures. He has got it wrong. The public are eating more meat and less starch.

Mr. Buchan: I am talking about the last month or two. I am talking about the right hon. Gentleman's figures. We can see that the change in price cuts consumption. We saw it particularly in relation to the right hon. Gentleman's figures for old-age pensioners. His own figures show a drop in consumption. He must put the two things in the same context. He cannot tell me, after what he did to beef prices in May and June, that more people were buying beef. My butcher said that people were terrified to go into his shop.
The House of Lords debated this question. It does not always understand our problems but Lord Leatherland, speaking about the cut in subsidy, said:
 I speak feelingly because I live almost entirely on fish. Every time I say to my wife, let us have lemon sole today,' she says. But lemon sole has gone up since last week.' If I turn to Scottish salmon it is the same"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th July, 1972; Vol. 333, c. 1517.]
He goes back to the second-best—Scottish salmon—and finds that the price has gone up. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not just hitting the poorer section of the community; he is also inconveniencing the rich.

Mr. McNamara: One nation!

Mr. Buchan: One nation—all suffering indiscriminately. That is the Minister's policy.
What about the cuts in relation to Common Market policy? In a Press Notice of 18th July of this year the right hon. Gentleman said that the White Fish Authority would have to change because we were entering the Common Market. He said:
The Community regulations foresee the establishment of a network of producers' organisations which, if fully achieved, would leave no separate regulatory rôle for independent national bodies like the Board and the Authority. On the other hand there are functions for which continuing provision may be needed.
My right hon. Friend and I have had arguments about the future of the White

Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board—long, involved discussions—as to whether we should have a combined board. It now automatically follows, not on the basis of the needs of the industry but on the basis of entering the Common Market. I suspect that the cut in subsidy is linked to the same movement. Will the Minister be able to continue the subsidy—the deep water formula and the ad hoc examination of profits—once we are in the Common Market, or is it just his instinct to push up prices?
The other related question is the matter of joining the two bodies together. If we are to see the end of the independent existence of these two bodies tribute should be paid to the work they have done in the past. A great deal of the success that the Minister is now using as an excuse to cut the subsidy on the fishing industry is due to the work—research and otherwise—of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board in the regulatory aspects of the industry. More credit should have been given to them for their work. We are told that they will somehow be joined together. We could have done with more details.
I thank the Minister for his comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). One needs a compass to deal with speakers in fishing debates in this House. One man is "West" and another is "East"; it is like a Dutchman's beard.
I welcome the suggestion that if we join the two bodies together the location of their headquarters should be in Scotland. That seems a sensible decision with which no one can quarrel. There are very good reasons why it should be in Scotland. Some of us will go out of our way to stress the advantages of its being there.
The right hon. Gentleman said that permanent guarantees have been given to the fishing industry as a result of discussions with the Common Market countries and the signing of the Treaty of Accession. This is just not so. There is no existing guarantee, particularly on the question of the continuation of the limits in relation to 1982 and the existing derogation. It is not true to say that a permanent guarantee has been received. The best the Minister can do is to hope


that the other countries will listen to his pleas, if he is still in power then, as we approach 1982, but there is no veto that can be used.
I accuse the Government of conning the industry and their own supporters into believing that that was how the veto functioned, but it functions in exactly the opposite way. The Minister of State, Scottish Office, at that time, Lady Tweedsmuir, I believe out of innocence, assured the Lords that that was the position but, as I say, I believe she spoke out of innocence, because I cannot believe that a Minister would allow herself to be so wrong.
When the derogation ends in 1982 we can argue, and we shall argue, that it should continue, but if any one member State of the Six—the Ten as it will be then—says "No," the derogation will end and we shall have lost the guarantee of our present fishing limits. We then revert to the common fisheries policy. So do not let the Government try to con the nation, even at this late hour, into believing that permanent and proper guarantees have been given to the industry. They have not been, and they cannot be now that we have signed the Treaty of Accession and, God help us, put the European Communities Bill through the House.
These matters are all in the background of the orders. We deplore the cuts because we believe that the Government have ignored the needs of the industry in making them. We think that the basis of the assessment was wrong. We are glad that the industry has been doing so well, but we do not take pleasure, nor do the fishermen, in the fact that this return has been based on the price of fish rather than on an increased production. The fishermen are holy people—they believe in what they are doing. They would rather the return came from producing increased food for the country than from over-charging.
Incidentally, I wish the right hon. Gentleman would control his very attractive Parliamentary Private Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] She is the most attractive of the three, without any doubt whatsoever—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that these comments really come within the terms of the order.

Mr. Buchan: What I may say may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, but at any rate in saying it I have reached agreement with one Member of the party opposite.
I welcome the increase of £1 million for research, but I would like to have more detail about how it is to be used. It seems a pity to increase the amount by £1 million while at the same time cutting back the advertising levy. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can give us some information on that point in particular.

11.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): On few occasions in fishing debates have I seen the Opposition toiling more strenuously to find arguments for criticising the Government. It was noticeable that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. West (Mr. James Johnson) was particularly careful to dissociate himself from the Cassandra-type remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) is usually in a Cassandra-type role. He did not particularly identify himself with it tonight but he achieved it well, and I shall be happy to deal with his arguments. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was careful not to identify himself in any particular way and raised some constructive points with which I shall be pleased to deal.
One realises what difficulty the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) must have had in pacing the corridors during the last few days trying to scrape up the arguments to throw at the Government about the way they have treated the fishing industry. His figures of consumption were of doubtful origin and not based on fact, he mixed up questions concerning the European Economic Community and he did not really understand the industry. Anyone outside the House who reads his speech will wonder what kind of argument he was trying to put forward.
The position is not in any way as some hon. Members on the Opposition side have tried to paint it, although I certainly do not look on the industry with any complacency. No one concerned with this great industry and the men who work in it throughout the country and on the high seas could ever be complacent about it. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in opening the debate, however, the last year has seen a greatly improving profit situation in the industry. It is this profit situation that I emphasise tonight.
One must be very careful not to confuse figures of earnings and figures of profit, to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred. He in no way confused these figures in opening the debate. He spoke about earnings but he also spoke about profits. If I may repeat what he said, after depreciation—this is the important point—the figures for United Kingdom vessels have more than doubled over the past three years, rising from about £1,000 in 1969 to £1,400 in 1970 and to £2,200 last year. Those are the figures not of earnings but of profit.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned an average profit figure of £2,200 and said that it was not very much for a vessel with four or five owners on a share basis. I remind him and the House, however, that the profit is after paying the working crew. For Scotland, in which I am particularly interested, the average wage of each crew member in 1971 was almost £1,800. This is additional to any share in profits. I hope that this puts the figure in perspective.
When we talk about profits, we mean profits. These are profits after the labour share has been paid out. This should demolish some of the Cassandra-type remarks we have heard from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench but which we heard rather less from their hon. Friends behind them.
In looking at the Scottish industry, I find it extremely significant that over the last three years annual earnings, including those from shellfish, have increased from £16·8 million in 1969 to £24·3 million in 1971. This is almost a 50 per cent. increase. During the same period, average profits per vessel after depreciation have increased from about £1,700 in 1969 to £3,300 in 1971, an

increase of about 90 per cent. I believe that the Scottish fleet has improved its profits position most significantly and there is every indication that this upward trend will continue this year.
In the period to the end of June, earnings from white fish and herring landings amounted to £11·9 million campared with £9·3 million in the same period in 1971 and the corresponding figure of £7·4 million in 1970. This indicates that within the United Kingdom figures to which my right hon. Friend referred the Scottish industry is enjoying a prosperous time.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman relate this to the volume of production?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was correct. One of the main factors here has been the increase in the price of fish. But what matters to the fishermen—and I know people in the industry—is the cash return. The financial position has improved and we should be pleased about that.
The question of consultation with the fishermen's associations is important. The associations were fully consulted when we discussed their results for last year. The Scottish associations have not made any further representations, and while those in England and Wales have expressed disappointment at the subsidy reduction their suggestion that the industry's rising costs were not fully taken into account is not correct, as I have indicated in my distinction between earnings and profits. Our assessment of the industry's financial position is based on its profit figures and not on earnings alone. If the associations had looked at the profits situation and not at the earnings situation alone, they would have seen that a different picture was given.
I turn to the question of Iceland. This can have an effect on the inshore industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said in a very effective letter to the Scotsman a week ago, this is something which will affect the Scottish inshore fishing industry. We do not have many boats fishing in Icelandic waters, but we have many boats fishing in the waters of the Faroes. It is naïve to assume that what happens in Iceland will not affect the situation


elsewhere. If some of the deep sea boats come into inshore waters, it can have a very serious effect on our inshore industry in Scotland.
That is what makes totally incomprehensible the attitude of the Scottish National Party in openly supporting Iceland's attitude and claims, not only as they affect the inshore industry but in the wider sense in that it is completely wrong to believe that we can solve the problem of conservation on a purely unilateral basis. This matter concerns us internationally and we must solve it, as we have sought to solve it, by international negotiation and co-operation. This is what we have offered Iceland. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West pointed out how important it is that we pursue this matter. We are in touch with the Dutch industry, as we have been in touch with others, over this problem.

Mr. Wall: And the West Germans.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, we are in touch also with the West Germans on these matters.
My right hon. Friend dealt with the question of the White Fish Authority. I understand the point that consultation with the White Fish Authority is important, but this is basically a matter for the authority itself. In trying to achieve dispersal of Government offices outside London these problems inevitably arise, and we should not let them hinder our attempts to achieve dispersal.
To deal finally with the question of confidence in the industry, I should say that in the first six months of this year applications from Scotland for grants for new vessels received by the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority totalled 53, against 86 for the whole of last year and 51 for the whole of 1970. In other words, in the first six months of this year we received more applications than in the whole of 1970. From the deep sea fishing industry in Scotland we have received six applications against two in 1970. These figures completely contradict the cries of woe of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side and show the confidence of the industry.
While I regret to some extent the reductions contained in the order, I give

the House and the industry an assurance that any change in the fortunes of the industry should it arise will be fully taken into account in future orders, but the present situation does not indicate the lack of confidence expressed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Priori]

LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

11.42 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the second time of asking.

Mr. Michael Cocks: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? As the debate was abbreviated last week because insufficient Members were present, is it in order for the Solicitor-General to speak a second time without the permission of the House?
I appreciate that when the Prime Minister seeks the permission of the House to answer certain Questions together, it is a form of courtesy and he does not require the permission of the House, but I should like to add one or two sentences to what I said on the previous occasion. How may I best expedite this matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): There is nothing to stop the hon. Member from saying what he wantsto say.

Mr. Cocks: Having studied the remarks of the Solicitor-General in the OFFICIAL


REPORT, and having given the matter a great deal of consideration, I am seized of the wisdom of what he said. Had he made those remarks some hours earlier when I was not subjected to the normal tedium and fatigue which beset all normal mortals when Government business is brought on at an unseemly hour after opposed Private Business, I might well have felt that the Bill should have had an unopposed Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Committee tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

SECONDARY EDUCATION, ILFORD

11.45 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The people I represent in this House would like me to say first of all to the Under-Secretary of State that they are most appreciative of his attendance tonight to answer to them, through me, on this matter—a matter which is so important to them, especially to those who are parents.
There are two things I must make clear at the outset. One is that I am unique among Members of Parliament in not pretending to have any influence on the borough council or any standing in the council's discharge of the responsibility which we in this House have put on it. The second is that I raise this purely local matter exceptionally in this House now only because the point has been reached when the Minister is brought into play with a function under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944. Once the Minister has a function, this House has a function; and once this House has a function,I have a function.
The Minister's function is that laid down in Section 13(3), namely, to consider modifying a proposal to combine Downshall Secondary Modern School with Beal Girls' Grammar School in

Ilford, in response to an objection submitted by the managers and governors of the schools affected and by local electors. I wish to make sure that the petitioners' feelings are publicly and fully expressed and acknowledged by the Minister in this House.
The Secretary of State acts in this matter in a quasi-judicial manner. We do not therefore expect from her, through my hon. Friend, a judgment or comment here and now, but I think we are properly entitled to ask for three things. First, we ask for an assurance that the Minister has the message from the objectors, which I will explain directly; secondly an indication from my hon. Friend now about when the Secretary of State's decision is likely to be made public; and thirdly a description of the process by which this decision will be reached and the sort of considerations and criteria that will be in the Minister's mind when making her decision.
It is my duty to deliver the objectors' message as I understand it. They are objecting to two things. Specifically and in detail, they object to the proposed reorganisation of these two schools. Secondly, and in general, they object to something much deeper and more fundamental, to which I shall refer later.
The specific objections, taken in order, are these. The objectors submit that it is wrong to combine two schools three-quarters of a mile apart because of the inevitable waste of time in travelling and the disruption of timetables. They submit that this will cut the time the staff will spend on teaching and will increase opportunities for truancy and indiscipline.
They submit that the proposal for a lower-tier Downshall School and an upper-tier Beal School will cause a break at 14 which will be particularly disruptive to children taking O-levels at 15.
They submit that the proposed change will disrupt the studies of girls already at Beal Grammar School, especially as this change may cause staff resignations.
They feel that the catchment area for the proposed new school will consist largely of an area in the older part of the borough. They envisage even that there may be a gradual shift of parents with particular ambitions for their children into areas where the general educational ambitions for their children


into areas where the general educational standards of the majority of those in the catchment area might supposedly be higher. They see this as a form of selection by wealth, which is the very thing that some of those most enthusiastically in favour of comprehensive eduction get most excited against.
The fear that the money to be used for raising the school leaving age will be diverted to converting the Beal Grammar School for girls into a mixed school, since no funds are to be made available specifically for reorganisation.
With reference to the reorganisation of secondary education in the borough as a whole, they ask the Minister further to consider that if she rejects the merger of the Beal and Downshall schools, she must then logically allow the Beal Boys' Grammar School to be rescued also, otherwise the balance in the borough as between boys' and girls' places will be upset.
Their next objection I shall quote verbatim from the notice of objection:
In the knowledge of the shortage of maths, science and language graduates entering the teaching profession we cannot feel convinced that each and every proposed comprehensive school will be able to offer courses leading to university entrance in the same way as at present offered in the grammar schools. This must mean a lowering of standards for those children who would have achieved selected places under the present system. In this connection one grammar school in this borough which is in process of converting to a comprehensive school is already restricting the range of academic subjects it offers to its pupils.
Next, the objectors believe that the present proposed scheme leaves only one girls' grammar school in the borough, and this at one end of a sprawling borough in which the communications are roughly comparable to those in the Sahara desert. Therefore no girl in the Chadwell ward, to be precise, will be able to take a grammar school place if she gets one.
Finally, the objectors express doubts as to the wisdom of destroying schools of proven educational value when doubt is being increasingly expressed, as they claim, among educationists about academic standards in comprehensive.
So much for the detailed points. But underlying the detail there is a far deeper

feeling, which is not always articulated, that somehow there has been a betrayal. The objectors feel that they are the ones who believe in excellence. The believe in high standards, hard work, discipline, endeavour and attainment. They feel that their beliefs are not being supported by authority in the way they are entitled to expect. They suspect that the worst elements among those who support the idea of comprehensive education and oppose them are motivated by envy, sloth, resentment and a desire to pander to the vicious class myths of the Left.
Their cry may not be a very fashionable one at the moment. Certainly it is not the most popular one, and perhaps it is less than just to the best of those who are opposed to them. But they are entitled to be heard, and I ask my hon. Friend—he is a Conservative Minister—to give sincere and sympathetic consideration to their objections.
I said that the cry of the objectors was not a popular one, and I should be less than frank with the House if I did not concede that opinion expressed by teachers in the borough and by parent-teacher associations and others consulted, with the exception of the body which is specifically organised to preserve the grammar schools, and which have all been conscientiously consulted by councillors, is in favour of the proposals of the Redbridge Borough Council to which the objectors are objecting, namely, to limit grammar schools in the borough to two and to bring about this particular merger to which the objectors object. Whether the opinion that has thus been expressed and which I felt it only right to confess to the House is indicative of total opinion in the borough is not for me to say. But that expression of opinion must not he concealed.
It might be fairer to conclude that the impartial observer would say,

"There is so much good in the worst of us,
And so much had in the best of us
That it ill-behoves the most of us
To cast aspersions on the rest of us."

I shall allow myself one personal comment, because it is wrong not to make a frank statement of one's own personal position. If I had had to face the dilemma—it has been a painful dilemma which has not been brought upon them by any wish of theirs—which faced the councillors of the Redbridge Borough


Council, I doubt whether I could have honestly opposed the scheme which has been eventually, and is now currently and largely reluctantly, adopted by the majority of the council. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who objected to it. It would have been with reluctance that I should have been persuaded to support it. It is largely because of the fault of Labour Government, now the Opposition, that the councillors were placed in such a situation, let me add in parenthesis. None the less, and especially because of that, I urge that serious consideration be given to the objections under Section 13.
Finally, I refer to a painful topic on which many constituents would welcome some comfort and advice from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. There are many families which are now suffering anguish and bitter disappointment in the borough because a son or daughter has qualified for a grammar school place and has been denied a place in either of the grammar schools now being retained in the borough, because of the reorganisation which is taking place. It is particularly painful in some cases where twins have both qualified for grammar school places and one has been given the grammar school of his or her choice while the other one has been denied a place at all. I have had the most distressing and heartrending letters asking for my help in this and other tragic situations.
One father wrote to me explaining that the whole family had been dedicating themselves for some four years to making sure that their boy succeeded in getting a place in a grammar school. The boy secured a place and, between being told that he had succeeded and being told what school he could go to, the father and the boy had gone round the borough looking at the grammar schools and deciding which one they would like him to go to. They were then told that they could have no place at all. The boy has come out in a rash, and anyone who knows anything about the way the body and the mind relate will realise that a boy of 11 years does not come out in a rash for nothing.
That is the sort of thing of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be aware. It should be realised what terrible and crushing repercussions

this kind of reorganisation of education can have. I hope that it is not unfair if I ask my hon. Friend to comment on the matter. It is not a matter on which my hon. Friend, the House or I, as a Member of the House, have a proper function as I understand it, but it is a matter which is causing great distress in the homes of many of those who perhaps offer the most to our country and who are entitled to the best in the education system. I do not want my hon. Friend to turn a deaf ear to these people any more than to those on whose behalf I have, perhaps more appropriately, explained the submissions made by way of the Section 13 objection.

11.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My hon. Friend has asked me basically to deal with three matters. I shall do my best to do exactly that in the limited time which he and I understand the rules of the House give us.
First, my hon. Friend asks me to confirm that a careful note will be taken of what he delivers on the Floor of the House as a message from the objectors to the various notices under Section 13 by the local education authority. I am definitely able to give him that assurance. On many occasions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown that she pays the closest personal attention to objections under Section 13—I now speak of the country as a whole—and that it is no mere formality where she is concerned.
My hon. Friend was kind enough to explain the semi- or quasi-judicial nature of my right hon. Friend's duties. Therefore, he understands totally—and I hope his explanation has helped his constituents to understand—that it would be totally wrong for me and not in their best interest if I expressed tonight judgments or views about the merits of the matters which are the subject of the Section 13 notices. These are matters which need to be carefully considered and there are Statutory procedures to be gone through. It would be wrong of me in one way or another to prejudice that consideration by anything I said tonight. It is for that reason that I am not going to comment on the detailed matters which are the subject of the Section 13 notices. I confirm, however, that objections both received


already and yet to be received will of course be given the most careful weight.
My hon. Friend asked when I thought my right hon. Friend would make public her decision. She is anxious to take an early decision on the proposals. The period covered by notice runs until 7th September. Therefore, local people have the opportunity until then to make their views known. The next step is for us to seek the authority's comments on any objections which have been received and to inform ourselves fully of all the relevant factors. That being so, and that procedure having been gone through—it is no mere formality with my right hon. Friend—I assure my hon. Friend that a decision on the proposals will after that be reached as quickly as possible. Beyond that, it is not proper for me to go if careful consideration is to be given.
My hon. Friend asked me to have understanding, which I do, of the feelings of parents whose children are not allotted, at the present state of the reorganisation in the borough, to a grammar school for which they feel their child has qualified. I think he perhaps has two particular schools in mind which started their first comprehensive intake in September. Both he and I would want to avoid any comment appearing to be critical of the devoted staff who work in both schools. Experience suggests that there are difficulties when comprehensive schools are being introduced in an area over a period rather than all at once, that preparation and constant oversight are certainly needed when schools have to operate in older buildings for an interim period until purpose-built accommodation can be provided.
The best I can say at the moment is that we sympathise with the authority's wish to replace the whole of one and part of another of the schools concerned at an early date. My right hon. Friend feels it is right at present, however, to concentrate the resources available on the improvement of old primary schools. I do not say that as an apology, because I believe that as a national policy this is broadly acceptable to a very large number of people, but it does necessarily constrict us when it comes to the replacement of existing secondary buildings of whatever kind.
Last of all, but most important, my hon. Friend asked if I would describe the sort of considerations in the Secretary of State's mind when she considers—as she is considering at present in the case of the borough a part of which my hon. Friend represents—Section 13 notices of this kind.
First, any proposals must be able to be implemented in reasonable conditions and make a wise use of existing resources. It is true that use often has to be made of existing buildings which were not designed for the needs of a full ability range, and although much can be done and is being done by the teaching profession and the local authorities to ameliorate conditions, my right hon. Friend gives careful attention to any proposal for a school in sub-standard premises or a school in two or more sets of premises. The latter situation, of two or more sets of premises, in particular can create problems of administration and communication, of which we are all aware. If we lived in a perfect world such schools would be replaced at once in new buildings on one site. But, as I have said, my right hon. Friend is giving the priority of her resources—after providing for "roofs over heads"—to the replacement of old primary schools. My right hon. Friend is careful, therefore, to approve only those proposals where the educational advantages outweigh the obvious drawbacks of unsuitable buildings.
My right hon. Friend, secondly, is concerned with the size of any proposed school. Smaller schools may not offer the breadth of opportunity at all levels which is available in a larger school. But with generous staffing and careful planning they can and do succeed and develop strong sixth forms with a good range of "A" level options. My right hon. Friend has said on several occasions that she thinks that children may benefit from the atmosphere of a smaller community. Larger schools have obvious advantages in the range of options that they can offer, but they pose problems of organisation. A great deal depends upon the particular area, the children and the staffing available.
On another point of organisation, my right hon. Friend looks most carefully at proposals for two-tier systems. She looks particularly at the age of transfer


from the lower school to the upper school. My hon. Friend specifically mentioned that point. Here again, my right hon. Friend is concerned that the standard of education in an area should be preserved and, where possible, improved as a result of any proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education.
My hon. Friend will notice that I have used the words "the standard of education". I am not one of those who shy away from the use of the word "standards" when it comes to education. I hope that it is common ground between us—I believe that my hon. Friend can rest assured about it—that my right hon. Friend has particularly at heart the interests of the children concerned.
The practical advantages of a proposal must always be weighed against its effect on the educational opportunities and standards existing in an area. It is for this reason that each proposal is considered on its merits and in relation to the effect which a change of character will have. In approving a proposal, my right hon. Friend would do so in the expectation that the range and standard of courses open to a child would at least be maintained, as would the ratio of staff to pupils and the standard of accommodation and practical facilities. In many cases the effect of reorganisation is not only to maintain but to improve these standards.
Last but by no means least, my right hon. Friend looks to see that a proposal accords with local wishes. It is for this very reason that the statutory procedure provides for objections by interested parties and for comments on those objections to be made by the local education authority. It is proper that local people who are much affected should have the opportunity of expressing a view upon a matter which is obviously very im-

portant to them. This debate provides another channel for an expression of that view.
I hope that what I have said will serve to reassure my hon. Friend that no decision is taken on matters of such weight and concern to him and his constituents as statutory proposals for the reorganisation of education without very careful personal consideration by my right hon. Friend not only as to their own merits but as to their likely effect on the standard of education in the area. If that can be conveyed, I hope and believe that once again my hon. Friend will have done a service to his constituents.

Mr. Iremonger: Will my hon. Friend say something about the difficulties of parents and children who are not getting the school of their choice? What is it best for us to try to do for them?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I must make it clear that the House for a long time, rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—has vested in the local education authority, substantially, the administration of individual schools. It does not rest with my hon. Friend as Member of Parliament or with myself as representing the Department to make detailed decisions in matters of this kind. As my hon. Friend knows, there rests the residuary power in the Secretary of State which can be appealed to in the case of an aggrieved individual parent. In our partnership system, it is the administration of education which we vest in the locally elected representatives of the people. I believe that there are far greater strengths in that system than weaknesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.